9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 787X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... revenue - ITA No. 39/VIZ/2017 - - - Dated:- 14-3-2018 - SHRI V. DURGA RAO, HON BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI D.S. SUNDER SINGH, HON BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER For The Assessee : Shri C. Kameswara Rao FCA For The Department : Shri T. Satyanandam Sr.DR ORDER PER V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Visakhapatnam, dated 24/11/2016 for the Assessment Year 2007-08. 2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that as per the assessment order, the assessee has sold her property at 49-5-9, Lalitha Nagar, Visakhapatnam, which was registered vide document No. 428/2007 on 15/02/2007 for a consideration of ₹ 50 lakhs, whose ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... akhapatnam, I have gone to the above mentioned address on 14.03.2014, 15.03.2014 and 16.03.2014 to serve the notice u/s. 148 against Smt. Ghatty Venkata Rajya Seshasri. He was never available at that premises. In these circumstances, there is no other way except to affix the said notice. Hence I have affixed the said notice u/s. 148 on 16.03.2014, on the front waif of the said building i.e. D.No. 49-57-14/3, Narasimhanagar, Visakhapatnam in the present of two local persons as witness and obtained their signatures. The same is enclosed herewith for your kind perusal. 3. On appeal, it was contended before the ld. CIT(A) that as the service of notice by affixture was done at the wrong address, therefore the impugned proceedings ini ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essing Officer has initiated the proceedings under section 147 and issued notice under section 148 dated 14/03/2014 to the address at Smt. Ghatty Venkata Rajya Seshasri W/o G.Sudhakar, D.No.49-57-14/3, Narasimha Nagar, Visakhapatnam. The said address was purportedly served by affixture at the above address stated in the notice. The Inspector in his report dated 16/03/2014 stated that he has visited the above address on 14/03/2014, 15/03/2014 16/03/2014 as assessee was not available to serve the notice under section 148, therefore, impugned notice was affixed on the front door of the wall of the said building at D.No. 49-57-14/3, Narasimha Nagar, Visakhapatnam. The contention of the assessee is that the address of the assessee is at D.No. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erved on the assessee because affixture of notice by the Inspector is at a wrong address. The correct address is at D.No. 45-57-14/3, Narasimha Nagar, Visakhapatnam. The notice affixed at D.No. 49-57-14/3 is an invalid notice and set aside the order by following the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Y. Narayana Chetty another Vs. ITO (35 ITR 388) and also the decision of the Hon'ble Assam High Court in the case of Tansukhrai Bodulal vs. ITO (46 ITR 325) (Gau.FB) and also the case of Smt. S. Nachiar vs. ITO (326 ITR 77). For the sake of convenience, the relevant portion of the order is extracted as under:- 9. It was contended that as the service by affixture was done at the wrong address there was no valid servi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... notice u/s.148 to the address at D.No.49-57-14/3, Narasimhanagar Visakhapatnam, which was not the address of the assessee. It is also noted that the other notices namely the notice u/s.142(1), the final opportunity letter.etc, were addressed to D,No.45-57-14/3, Narasimhanagar, Visakhapatnam and were duly served, In view of the factual scenario, it is concluded that the notice u/s. 148 was not affixed at the address of the assessee and thus not served on the assessee. 10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court In the case of Y. Narayana Chetty and Another vs. ITO (35 1TR 388) held The service of the requisite notice on the assessee is a condition precedent to the validity of any reassessment made under s.34; and if a valid notice is not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
