2012 (7) TMI 545 - HC - Income Tax

Notice under section 143(2) of the Act - Held that - Notice under the said section must be served on the assessee within the time stipulated in the proviso. In case the notice was not served within the said time limit the assessment order passed would be null and void - No attempt was made to serve the respondent-assessee at the correct address which was available with the Department - Subsequent attempt to serve another notice under section 143(2) long after the expiry of the limitation period In favor of assessee

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of notice under section 143(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for assessment year 2006-07.

Analysis:
The appeal by the Revenue challenged the order passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal regarding the assessment year 2006-07. The issue revolved around the validity of the notice served under section 143(2) of the Act. The Tribunal and the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) found the service by affixture to be invalid. It was noted that the assessee had provided a different address in their tax filings and had shifted from the address where the notice was attempted to be served. The correct address was available with the Department and was mentioned in various official documents. The failure to serve the notice at the correct address within the stipulated time rendered the subsequent attempt invalid.

The requirement for serving a notice under section 143(2) within the prescribed time limit was emphasized based on previous judgments. The court referred to the case law of CIT v. Lunar Diamonds Ltd., where it was held that failure to serve the notice within the specified period would invalidate the assessment order. In the present case, the Assessing Officer had initially attempted to serve the notice at an outdated address, leading to the notice being returned undelivered. Subsequent attempts to serve the notice at the correct address were made long after the limitation period had expired, which was deemed insufficient to rectify the initial failure.

The factual findings highlighted the discrepancy between the address where the notice was attempted to be served and the address provided by the assessee in their filings. The court noted that the correct address was clearly available with the Department and had been used in previous official documents. The failure to make a reasonable attempt to serve the notice at the correct address within the stipulated time period led to the dismissal of the appeal by the Revenue. The judgment reaffirmed the importance of adhering to procedural requirements, especially regarding the service of notices, to maintain the validity of assessment orders.