9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (5) TMI 747 - AT - Income TaxService of notice u/s 143(2) - validity of assessment - no notice served upon the assessee company within the prescribed time at the correct address - address in PAN data VS address in returns - HELD THAT - Assessee has been consistently disclosing the address to the Revenue Department for the purpose of service and communication at 3, Tansen Marg, Bengali Market, New Delhi and this fact is also admitted by the A.O. Therefore, merely notice u/s 143(2) for this year have been issued as per PAN data would not be relevant. A.O, therefore, deliberately did not issue notice u/s 143(2) at the address available to the Revenue Department on their record at 3, Tansen Marg, Bengali Market, New Delhi. Therefore, there is no question of service of the notice at Gurudwara Road, New Delhi. We are of the view that notice u/s 143(2) have not been issued to the assessee at the correct address within the period of limitation. No notice u/s 143(2) have been served upon the assessee within the period of limitation. Therefore, entire assessment order is vitiated and is liable to be set aside and quashed - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the assessment proceedings due to non-service of notice under section 143(2) within the prescribed period. 2. Legality of the assessment order dated 28.12.2011. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of the assessment proceedings due to non-service of notice under section 143(2) within the prescribed period: The assessee challenged the validity of the assessment proceedings on the grounds that no notice under section 143(2) was served within the statutory period of 12 months from the end of the financial year in which the return was filed, i.e., on or before 30.09.2010. The assessee contended that the first notice under section 143(2) was served on 07.03.2011, which was beyond the statutory period, rendering the assessment proceedings and order illegal and bad in law. The Ld. CIT(A) decided against the assessee, stating that the notice was sent to the address at 2659/3, Gurudwara Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi, which was one of the premises of the assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) noted that the address was in the possession of the assessee and there was no evidence of the notice being unserved by the postal department. Therefore, the proceedings could not be treated as bad in law merely due to the defect in the notice mentioning an address different from the one provided for return purposes. The Tribunal, however, found that the notice should have been served at the address provided in the return of income, i.e., 3, Tansen Marg, Bengali Market, New Delhi. The Tribunal noted that the property at Gurudwara Road, Karol Bagh, was sold on 25.02.2010, and hence, there was no question of the notice being served at that address. The Tribunal relied on various judgments, including CIT vs. Lunar Diamonds Ltd., CIT vs. CPR Capital Services Ltd., and Pr. CIT vs. Jai Shiv Shankar Traders Pvt. Ltd., which emphasized the necessity of serving the notice within the prescribed period and at the correct address. The Tribunal concluded that the notice under section 143(2) was not served within the period of limitation, thus rendering the entire assessment order illegal and bad in law. 2. Legality of the assessment order dated 28.12.2011: Given the finding that the notice under section 143(2) was not served within the statutory period, the Tribunal held that the entire assessment order dated 28.12.2011 was vitiated and liable to be set aside and quashed. Consequently, all additions made in the assessment order stood deleted. Conclusion: The Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee, quashed the assessment order, and deleted all additions. The appeal of the Revenue was dismissed as infructuous. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of serving the notice under section 143(2) within the prescribed period and at the correct address as provided in the return of income.
|
