9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (11) TMI 603X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or the assessment year (AY) 2008-09. 2. The petitioner, an individual tax payer, claims to reside at C-309, Vikas Puri, New Delhi-110018. From the said address, he submits that he has been filing his income tax returns since 1996 onwards in accordance with Section 124(1)(b) of the Act. This address falls within the jurisdiction of Income Tax Officer Ward - 26(4) from where he was issued notice dated 28.02.2003 under Section 271F for AY 2000-01 followed by the penalty order dated 12.03.2003. It is not in dispute that on 09.05.1999, he opened a proprietorship concern by the name of Jindal Metal Co. at 5870/37, First Floor, Basti Harphool Singh, Sadar Bazaar, Delhi-110006 which was registered with the sales tax department at Delhi. The Petiti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessment proceedings. Again, on 04.01.2016, a notice of hearing and final assessment was sought to be served; due to the petitioner's absence, it was affixed at the premises; in these circumstances, the AO completed the reassessment on 11.01.2016, at `12,52,390/- after allowing credit of prepaid taxes, if any, and charged interest u/s 234A, 234B, 234C and 234D of Income Tax Act as per law. Penalty proceedings under Section 271 (1) (b) & 271 (1) (c) of the Act too were initiated. 4. The petitioner apparently did not respond; however, he approached the CIT under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, seeking revision of the reassessment order. In the revision petition, it was averred as follows: "The petitioner received on 28/01/2016 an asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he ITO, Ward-63(3), New Delhi intended to assess the petitioner himself and as the petitioner is a law abiding citizen and an honest tax payer and doesn't want to dodge any proceedings intended to assess him, he decided to intervene. He has preferred an appeal to the learned CIT (Appeal) XX New Delhi impugning the assessment order dated 21-12-2016 for the assessment year 2009-10 and since the time for filing an appeal against the assessment order dated 11-01-2016 for the assessment year 2008-09 has elapsed, the petitioner has come up before you with this humble petition under section 264 of the Income Tax Act." 5. The CIT disposed of the revision petition, stating as follows: "I have carefully considered the submission of the assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 2008-09 had elapsed. However it IS evident that due to no- cooperative and recalcitrant attitude of the assessee he could file any appeal before the CIT (Appeal) though the assessment order who duly served on the assessee on 28.01.2016 as also admitted by the assessee. The order has been validity issued by the assessing officer u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 of the IT Act 1961. Moreover the assessee in its audit report u/s 44AB of the IT Act 1961, has reflected 5870/37, First Floor, Basti Harphool Singh, Sadar Bazar, Delhi as his business address. Here the 'reason to believe' of the assessing officer is based on relevant and material reasons and the assessee is required to file a return of income in response to issue of notice under section 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the proceedings could have been initiated only under Section 153C, and not through reassessment. 7. It is stated that the entire proceeding under Section 147 is vitiated as the jurisdictional notice u/s 148 of the Act has not been served upon the petitioner. The fact of the matter is that the Section 148 notice dated 23.03.2015 was sent by Speed Post on 23.03.2015. This could not be served because in terms of the report, the shop was found to be closed on 24, 25 and 26.03.2015 itself. The notice so sent apparently came back to the AO on 30.3.2015. But before this report of non-service could come back, the said notice was said to be affixed on 24.03.2015. The affixture was said to be made under Order V Rule XVII of the Code of Civil P ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ged in the affixture (at the address) is insubstantial and unmerited. The revision petition admitted in clear terms that the reassessment order and subsequent demand notice, were received. In the circumstances, the argument that notice of reassessment and hearing notices were not received, rings hollow. 9. Undoubtedly, reassessment proceedings can be initiated and completed after notice to the assessees and granting opportunity to them. However, the facts of this case reveal that not only were the notices received, even the reassessment order was received (the revision petition admits as much) and the assessee did not care to appeal against it; concededly, he filed the revision petition after the period of limitation. Given these facts, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
