9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Challenge to validity of assessment due to non-service of notice under s. 158BC. Analysis: The appeal challenged the block assessment order confirming undisclosed income of Rs. 40,26,200, arguing that the notice under s. 158BC was not served. The assessee contended that the notice was sent to an old address, not the current residence, and was returned unserved. The AO claimed the notice was served by hand, but the Revenue could not prove it. The Tribunal noted that service of notice under s. 158BC is a condition precedent for assessing undisclosed income, affecting jurisdiction. The AO failed to establish notice service, rendering the assessment without jurisdiction and null and void. The Tribunal cited legal precedents supporting this view. Jurisdictional Issues: The Tribunal emphasized that the special provisions for assessing undisclosed income require strict adherence to procedures, including serving notice under s. 158BC. The absence of proper notice service affects the AO's jurisdiction to proceed with the assessment. Despite the AO's claim of hand-delivered notice, the Revenue failed to provide evidence of service, leading to the assessment being deemed null and void due to lack of jurisdiction. Applicability of s. 292B: The Tribunal rejected the Department's reliance on s. 292B, stating it does not apply when notice service is in question. While s. 292B addresses mistakes or defects in notices, it does not validate non-service. The Tribunal clarified that the issue was not the validity of the notice but the failure to serve it, making s. 292B irrelevant in this context. Decision and Outcome: Ultimately, the Tribunal quashed the orders of the CIT(A) and AO, ruling in favor of the assessee due to the jurisdictional flaw resulting from non-service of the notice under s. 158BC. As the assessee succeeded on this ground, further adjudication on the additions made by the AO was unnecessary. The appeal of the assessee was allowed, and the assessment was deemed null and void.
|
