2023 (11) TMI 132 - HC - Income Tax

Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - assessee was not served with a notice u/s148 - HELD THAT - The assessment order was passed by the AO despite being made aware of the fact that the assessee had not been served with a notice u/s 148 of the Act. The reassessment proceedings can be triggered only when a notice under Section 148 has been issued and served on the concerned assessee. This is a finding of fact. Both the CIT(A) as well as the Tribunal have come to a definitive conclusion that the service of notice under Section 148 was not effected on the respondent/assessee. Therefore, according to us, no interference is called for with the impugned order passed by the Tribunal stating that as noted that the CIT(A) had called for the remand report and had also examined the record available with AO before concluding that the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act had been served at the wrong address.

Summary

Issues involved:
The issue involves the service of notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and whether it was served on the correct address of the respondent/assessee.

Summary:

Service of Notice under Section 148:
The Tribunal noted that the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act was served at an incorrect address, despite the respondent/assessee consistently providing her correct address in the ITRs. The AO passed the assessment order despite knowing the correct address of the assessee. Efforts were made to trace the correct address, indicating that the notice was not effectively served. The appellant/revenue argued that the notice was valid as the address in the PAN database was not changed, citing a Supreme Court judgment. However, the facts of this case differ as the correct address was known to the AO before the assessment order was passed.

Interference with Impugned Order:
Both the CIT(A) and the Tribunal conclusively found that the notice under Section 148 was not served on the respondent/assessee. The reassessment proceedings require proper service of notice, and since the notice was not effectively served, no interference is warranted with the Tribunal's order. The Tribunal's finding is based on facts, and no substantial question of law arises for consideration.

Conclusion:
The appeal was closed, and parties were directed to act based on the digitally signed copy of the order.