9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (2) TMI 356X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me AO for the said AY 2006-07 showing the new address. It is now well established preposition of law that in absence of service of notices u/s 148/143(2) of the Act, the reassessment framed u/s 147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act will be null and void. Under these facts and circumstances, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in holding the assessment impugned as null and void. - Decided against Revenue. - ITA No.3429/Del /2010 - - - Dated:- 27-11-2014 - SHRI G.D. AGARWAL AND SHRI I.C. SUDHIR, JJ. For the Appellant : Shri Vikran Sahay, Sr.D.R. For the Respondent : Shri V.P. Gupta, Advocate ORDER Per: I C Sudhir: 1. The Revenue has impugned first appellate order on two grounds. Firstly that the ld. CIT(A) has erred in allowing th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... viya Nagar, New Delhi on 01.03.2006. 4. The submission of the assessee remained that on intimation about the above said change address was furnished with the Registrar of Companies and also with the Income Tax Department through NSDL. It was pointed out that the assessee had also furnished copy of Form-18 filed with the ROC and copy of the letter from NSDL confirming updating of the new address of the assessee in their records. It was contended that return of income for AY 2006-07 was also filed by the assessee with the same AO showing the said new address and notice u/s 143(2) dated 22.10.2007 and u/s 115WE(2) dated 22.10.2007 for the AY 2006-07 were also issued by the same AO at the new address of the assessee and the assessment order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d that the AO had sent the notices u/s 148 dated 28.03.2008 and u/s 143(2) dated 15.07.2008 and 13.10.2008 by the speed post at the above wrong address. He noted further that there is no proof of service of the said notices available on record. He accordingly held that since the impugned reopening u/s 148 and ex-parte order u/s 147 have been done without service of the required notices u/s 148/143(2) upon the assessee, the AO s action in this regard is found to be illegal and without jurisdiction. The Ld. CIT(A) has accordingly annulled the reassessment order. 7. We do not find any infirmity in the First Appellate order as discussed above on the issue. The presumption of service as argued by the Ld. Sr. D.R. would have come to the help o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
