2018 (11) TMI 603 - HC - Income Tax

Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - proof of serving of notice - revision petition u/s 263 - Held that - The materials on record show that the petitioner had one PAN number; furthermore, it is not in dispute that he was served with proceedings relating to reassessment notice. According to his admission (in the averments in the revision petition) notice of assessment and notice of demand for the subsequent assessment years were received by him. These established that he was functioning at the address to which the reassessment notices (and hearing notices) were addressed. In these circumstances, his claim that the process server s file noting conclusively established that notice could not be served (due to his absence) and the defect alleged in the affixture (at the address) is insubstantial and unmerited. The revision petition admitted in clear terms that the reassessment order and subsequent demand notice, were received. In the circumstances, the argument that notice of reassessment and hearing notices were not received, rings hollow. Undoubtedly, reassessment proceedings can be initiated and completed after notice to the assessees and granting opportunity to them. However, the facts of this case reveal that not only were the notices received, even the reassessment order was received (the revision petition admits as much) and the assessee did not care to appeal against it; concededly, he filed the revision petition after the period of limitation. Given these facts, the Commissioner cannot be faulted for rejecting the revision petition on the ground that there was no jurisdictional error.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to revisional order upholding reassessment for AY 2008-09, Jurisdictional notice service under Section 148, Validity of reassessment proceedings, Rejection of revision petition by CIT, Claim of lack of jurisdiction in reassessment proceedings, Compliance with notice requirements, Assertion of non-receipt of notices, Jurisdictional error in reassessment, Dismissal of petition.

Analysis:

1. The petitioner challenged a revisional order upholding the reassessment for the assessment year 2008-09, which was based on a notice under Section 148 initiated due to a search and seizure operation on other individuals. The Revenue sought to reopen the petitioner's assessment based on materials gathered during the search. The Additional CIT approved this move, leading to the issuance of notices to the petitioner. The AO completed the reassessment, and penalty proceedings were initiated. The petitioner approached the CIT under Section 264 seeking revision of the reassessment order.

2. The CIT dismissed the revision petition, noting that the assessee had not cooperated during the reassessment proceedings. The CIT highlighted that the petitioner had not responded to the notices issued under Section 148 and had only intervened after receiving subsequent assessment orders. The CIT found the assessing officer's actions to be valid under the Income Tax Act and dismissed the petition for relief, directing the AO to verify the details submitted by the assessee.

3. The petitioner argued that the reassessment proceedings were without jurisdiction as they were initiated under Section 147 instead of Section 153C. The petitioner contended that the jurisdictional notice under Section 148 was not served properly. However, the court found that the petitioner had received the notices and the reassessment order, indicating his awareness of the proceedings. The court held that the petitioner's claim of lack of jurisdiction and non-receipt of notices was unsubstantiated.

4. The court emphasized that reassessment proceedings require notice to the assessee and an opportunity to be heard. In this case, the petitioner received the notices and the reassessment order but failed to appeal within the stipulated time. The court upheld the CIT's decision to reject the revision petition, stating that there was no jurisdictional error in the reassessment proceedings. The court dismissed the petition without any order on costs.

5. In conclusion, the court found no merit in the petitioner's claims and dismissed the petition. The court also dismissed any pending applications related to the case. The judgment affirms the validity of the reassessment proceedings and highlights the importance of compliance with notice requirements in such matters.