9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of proceedings under Section 148 due to non-service of notice. 2. Validity of assessment orders under Sections 147 and 143(3). 3. Participation in proceedings and its impact on jurisdiction. 4. Adherence to statutory provisions for service of notice. Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of Proceedings under Section 148 due to Non-Service of Notice: The primary issue contested by the assessee was the non-service of notice under Section 148. The assessee argued that the notice was not served on him or any authorized representative, rendering the proceedings void ab initio. The CIT(A) inferred service based on the assessee's participation in the proceedings, but the Tribunal emphasized that actual service of notice is a jurisdictional requirement. The Tribunal noted that the notice was allegedly served on a person at the assessee's shop, but this person was not identified or authorized to receive notices. The Tribunal referred to various case laws, including the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Y. Narayana Chetty v. ITO and the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in Laxmi Narain Anand Prakash, which established that proper service of notice is a condition precedent to valid reassessment proceedings. 2. Validity of Assessment Orders under Sections 147 and 143(3): The Tribunal quashed the assessment orders for both assessment years (1995-96 and 1996-97) due to the invalid service of notice under Section 148. The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer could not assume jurisdiction without proper service of notice, and mere participation in the proceedings by the assessee did not validate the assessment orders. The Tribunal relied on the Full Bench decision of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in Laxmi Narain Anand Prakash, which held that jurisdiction to proceed under Section 21 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act (analogous to Section 148 of the Income-tax Act) is conferred only after valid service of notice. 3. Participation in Proceedings and Its Impact on Jurisdiction: The Department argued that the assessee's participation in the proceedings implied valid service of notice. However, the Tribunal rejected this argument, stating that participation does not confer jurisdiction if the initial notice was not validly served. The Tribunal referred to multiple case laws, including Prem Kumar Rastogi and Gorakhpur Petro Oils Ltd, which held that acquiescence or participation in proceedings does not cure the defect of non-service or invalid service of notice. 4. Adherence to Statutory Provisions for Service of Notice: The Tribunal examined the statutory provisions under Section 282 of the Income-tax Act and the relevant rules under the Code of Civil Procedure. It emphasized that service of notice must be either on the assessee or an authorized representative, and any deviation from this prescribed mode renders the service invalid. The Tribunal noted that the person on whom the notice was allegedly served was not identified or authorized, and the Department failed to discharge its onus to prove valid service. Conclusion: The Tribunal quashed the assessment orders for both assessment years due to the invalid service of notice under Section 148. It held that proper service of notice is a jurisdictional requirement and cannot be cured by the assessee's participation in the proceedings. Consequently, the appeals filed by the assessee were allowed, and those filed by the Department were dismissed as infructuous.
|
