9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (6) TMI 913X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e . Even he has not mentioned as to where he had gone to affix the notice, to say whether it was affixed at the last known residential address of the assessee or at the last known work place of the assessee. Though the signature of one Shri Mangat Ram have also been appended but who that Mangat Ram is/was, has not been mentioned; whether he was an independent witness available at the place where the affixation was done or was an employee of the income Tax office, is not coming out. Even as mentioned above, the notice by registered post as well as by way of substituted service was allegedly served on the same date. There was no reason for the satisfaction of the AO that the alleged notice cannot be served in an ordinary way. AO issued the affixture order on the same day without waiting for the outcome of the service of notice sent through ordinary way i.e. by way of registered post. Service could not be effected at the village address of the assessee, the AO thereafter served the notice u/s 142(1) at his office address which means that the Assessing officer had come to know the office address of the assessee at which service can be effected but admittedly no notice u/s 148 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing Officer in adopting the sale consideration on the basis of so called alleged sale agreement, which is not reliable at all. 6. That the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in not admitting the additional ground of appeal, which was legal ground of appeal and which ought to have admitted in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. National Thermal Plant as reported in 229 ITR 383. 7. That the Appellant craves leave to add or amend the grounds of appeal before the appeal is finally heard or disposed off. 3. At the outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that as per the instructions of his client, he does not press ground No. 6. This ground is therefore, dismissed as not pressed . 4. The facts of the case in brief are that in this case the assessment was reopened u/s 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') by way of issuance of notice dated 26.3.2013 u/s 148 of the Act in the name of deceased assessee Shri Balbir Singh. However, admittedly the assessee had already died on 25.11.2012 i.e. much before the issuance of notice u/s 148 of the Act. Even, the notice u/s 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nted out that the LR of the assessee should have promptly come forward to apprise the Assessing officer that the assessee had died so that notice could have been issued in the name of legal representative of the assessee. We do not find any force in the above contention of the Ld. DR. as noticed above, the notice was not served through registered post / or by regular mode of service. The notice in this case was allegedly served through substituted mode of the service i.e. by affixation of the same at the door of the house of the assessee. Further, the report of service through affixation have not been witnessed by any person. Had the Income-tax officials actually gone to the house of the deceased assessee and enquired from the villagers about the whereabouts of the assessee for the purpose of service of the notice, they could have easily come to know about the death of the original assessee and would have accordingly apprised the Assessing officer. 6. It is not believable that the Revenue officials had visited the house of the assessee and they could not get the information about the death of the assessee despite affixation of the notice which is also ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) has erred in not admitting the additional ground of appeal, which was legal ground of appeal and which ought to have admitted view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs National Thermal Plant as reported in 229 ITR 383. 6. That the Appellant craves leave to add or amend the grounds of appeal before the appeal is finally heard or disposed off. 11. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee stated at Bar that as per the instructions of his client, he does not press ground No. 5, this ground is, therefore, dismissed as not pressed. 12. The assessee, in this appeal, apart from contesting the additions made by the lower authorities on merits has also taken the legal ground regarding the validity of the assessment framed u/s 147 of the Act on the ground that there was no valid service of mandatory notice required to be issued u/s 148 of the Act. 13. The facts of the case in brief are that in this case the assessment was reopened u/s 147 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') by way of issuance of notice dated 26.3.2013 u/s 148 of the Act through registered post as well as by way of subst ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed father Shri Balbir Singh has been mentioned as H. No. 2208C, Phase-7, SAS Nagar, Mohali, however, since the said house itself was the subject matter of sale, the Assessing officer served the alleged notice / letter at the old address / village address of the assessee at Village Bhattian, Tehsil Khanna. However, the other address of the assessee and his father was available in the agreement to sell itself i.eon the receipt printed on the back side of the stamp paper at which the Assessing officer never served notice u/s 148 of the Act. The Ld. counsel has invited our attention to the receipt which has been printed on the back of the stamp papers upon which the alleged agreement to sell has been executed, wherein, the name and address of the seller i.e. Shri Balbir Singh, the deceased father of the assessee, has been mentioned as Shri Balbir Singh S/o Shri Dharam Singh 1535/34-D, Chandigarh. However, the alleged notice was never served by the Assessing officer on the said address despite the address of the assessee duly mentioned on the receipt which was the part and parcel of the alleged agreement to sell on the basis of which reopening of the assessment has been m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ial address of the assessee or at the last known work place of the assessee. Though the signature of one Shri Mangat Ram have also been appended but who that Mangat Ram is/was, has not been mentioned; whether he was an independent witness available at the place where the affixation was done or was an employee of the income Tax office, is not coming out. Even as mentioned above, the notice by registered post as well as by way of substituted service was allegedly served on the same date. Under the circumstances, there was no reason for the satisfaction of the Assessing officer that the alleged notice cannot be served in an ordinary way. The Assessing officer issued the affixture order on the same day without waiting for the outcome of the service of notice sent through ordinary way i.e. by way of registered post. 17. A perusal of the assessment order further reveals that when the service could not be effected at the village address of the assessee, the Assessing officer thereafter served the notice u/s 142(1) of the Act at his office address which means that the Assessing officer had come to know the office address of the assessee at which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
