9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 1272X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wn address is valid service. It is further held that it was incumbent on the Tribunal not to quash the whole proceedings as it amounted to leaving the assessee go scot free, though he is liable to pay tax on the capital gains. The assessee received compensation on compulsory acquisition of land, therefore, he cannot deny his liability to pay long term capital gain tax. Merely because there was some error in service of notices on the assessee, statutory liability of the assessee to pay tax on capital gain was not over. Because of procedural lapse, the assessee should not be a gainer and that too by default to escape his liability. The case law cited by the learned DR i.e. V.R.A. Cotton Mills P. Ltd. Vs. Union of India (2011 (9) TMI 611 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT) is squarely application on the assessee’s case wherein it has been held that prescribed time limit for notice, the expression “serve” and “issue” are interchangeable, as has been noticed in Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 and also in a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Banarsi Devi Vs. ITO (1964 (3) TMI 11 - SUPREME Court), therefore, the moment, notice is signed and put in the cou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the premises where the assessee was residing or last known address. The above said notices were affixed in front of the premises before the two witnesses on 26/09/2008. Subsequently, the I.T.O. Ward 3(2), Chandigarh was noticed that the address of the assessee had been changed from Chandigarh to Kota. Thus, the I.T.O. Ward 3(2), Chandigarh issued another notice U/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act on 30/9/2009 fixing the case for hearing on 16/10/2008 sent through registered post to the address of Kota i.e. M/s Advance Care Remedies, 4-J-39, Vigyan Nagar, Kota. As per records, neither the required details filed by the assessee nor filed any application for adjournment. Again the I.T.O. Ward 3(2), Chandigarh issued a letter dated 29/01/2009 to the assessee at Kota address and fixing the case for hearing on 09/2/2009. The above said letter was returned back to the I.T.O. Ward 3(2), Chandigarh by the postal department with the remark that Thereafter, the case has been transferred by the I.T.O. Ward 3(2), Chandigarh to the office of I.T.O., ward 1(2), Kota as jurisdiction over the case vests with this office vide letter No. ITO/W-3(2)/2008-09/3473 dated 24/09/2009. 2.1 On recei ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... otice server. A copy of the above letter was sent by registered post, which was also unserved by the postal department and returned back with the remark that Again show cause notice U/s 142(1) issued by the office letter dated 08/12/2009 fixing the case for hearing on 12/12/2009, which was affixed by the Inspector and notice server of this office as per order under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 dated 08/12/2009. On the fixed date, none attended nor filed required details. Again another opportunity was granted vide his office letter dated 14/12/2009 requesting to show cause as to why the assessment might not be completed as ex parte U/s 144 of the Act with the available material on record and why penalty proceeding should not be initiated and show cause notice for imposing penalty U/s 271(1)(b) of the Act was given. Even after various opportunities provided by the Assessing Officer, the assessee was intentionally avoiding compliance of notices issued by the Assessing Officer. Accordingly, order passed U/s 144 of the Act and trading addition of ₹ 2,11,856/- and unexplained creditors of ₹ 41,48,688/- were made by the Assessing Officer. 3. Being agg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. 5. The learned D.R. contended that given address on e-filing return was with the I.T.O. Ward 3(2), Chandigarh, who had issued first notice on 25/09/2008, which could not be served, therefore, he again issued notice on 26/09/2008, which was served by affixture under the Code of Civil Procedure on 26/09/2008 through Ward Inspector and notice server before two witnesses. Thereafter, he also sent a notice on 30/09/2008 through registered post to the address of Kota address i.e. Advance Care Remedies, 4-J-39, Vigyan Nagar, Kota. The subsequent notices were also sent on given address of Kota address but letters were returned back by the I.T.O. Ward 3(2), Chandigarh with remark that At one point of time, the assessee was claiming that he has filed return with the address of Kota for A.Y. 2007-08 on which the notices were sent by the I.T.O. Ward 3(2), Chandigarh, had not been received by the assessee and postal authority certified that it appears that the assessee was intentionally avoiding the income tax proceeding. The argument taken before the learned CIT(A) that somebody has filed return in the name of the assessee, cannot be accepted as the assessee has not filed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the record. By affixture notice was served on the given address of the assessee on 26/09/2008. Even the assessee himself admitted that he had received notice dated 30/09/2008 on 09/10/2008, which is within 12 months from the date of return filed i.e. 31/10/2007. The Hon ble Punjab Haryana High Court in the case of Amarjit Singh Tut (supra) has held that statute of limitation is a procedural statute and is applicable to pending proceedings. Objection to the territorial jurisdiction has to be raised at the earliest and it otherwise deemed to have been waived. The Hon ble Court further held that for A.Y. 2007-08 even notice issued and served within one year from the end of the date of return is valid notice U/s 143(2)(ii) of the Act. In another case, the Hon ble Punjab Haryana High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Jasbir Singh NRI through Shri Jarnail Singh, POA in ITA No. 253 of 2012 (O M) order dated 21/2/2012 has held that notice issue on the last known address is valid service. It is further held that it was incumbent on the Tribunal not to quash the whole proceedings as it amounted to leaving the assessee go scot free, though he is liable to pay tax on the capital gains. The ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
