The ITO, Agra v. Dinesh Chand & Sons (HUF), Agra

ITA 174/AGR/2009 | 2000-2001
Pronouncement Date: 16-11-2011 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 17420314 RSA 2009
Assessee PAN AABHD8874N
Bench Agra
Appeal Number ITA 174/AGR/2009
Duration Of Justice 2 year(s) 6 month(s) 15 day(s)
Appellant The ITO, Agra
Respondent Dinesh Chand & Sons (HUF), Agra
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 16-11-2011
Appeal Filed By Department
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted DB
Tribunal Order Date 16-11-2011
Date Of Final Hearing 21-10-2011
Next Hearing Date 21-10-2011
Assessment Year 2000-2001
Appeal Filed On 01-05-2009
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AGRA BENCH AGRA BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.C. MEENA ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 174/AGRA/2009 ASSTT. YEAR : 2000-01 INCOME-TAX OFFICER VS. DINESH CHAND & SON (HUF ) 4(1) AGRA. 19/11 PEER KALYANI ROAD AGRA . (PAN : AABHD 8874 N) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) FOR APPELLANT : SHRI A.K. SHARMA JR. D.R. FOR RESPONDENT : SHRI R.C. TOMAR I.T.P. DATE OF HEARING : 21.10.2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 16.11.2011 ORDER PER H.S. SIDHU J.M. : THE REVENUE HAS FILED THE PRESENT APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 23.01.2009 ON THE FOLLOWING EFFECTIVE GROUNDS : 1. THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A)-II AGRA HAS ERRED IN L AW AND ON FACTS IN QUASHING THE ASSESSMENT IGNORING THE FACTS WHICH WE RE MENTIONED IN THE BODY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER UNDER REFERENCE HOLDING THAT THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S.148 IN THE NAME OTHER THAN THAT OF THE ASSESSEE WHEREAS THE AO ASSESSED THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME AT RS.12 16 092/-. 2. THAT THE LEANED CIT(A)-II AGRA HAS NOT EVEN GO NE INTO THE MATERIAL FACTS OF THE CASE LEADING TO FORMATION OF THE BELIE F OF THE A.O. THAT THE INCOME SHOWN AS SALE PROCEEDS OF SHARES HAD ESCAPED ASSESS MENT IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. 2. THE BRIEF FACTS RELATING TO THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE ARE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER INITIATED THE PROCEEDINGS U/S. 147 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT 1961 (H EREINAFTER CALLED THE ACT) ON 23.03.2007 BY ISSUING A NOTICE U/S. 148 DATED 23.03.2007 TO THE A SSESSEE WHICH WAS SERVED ON 31.03.2007. 2 THESE PROCEEDINGS WERE INITIATED ON THE BASIS OF SO ME INFORMATION RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FROM ADDL. DIT(INV.) AGRA THROUGH THE CIT- II AGRA AND ADDL. CIT RANGE-IV AGRA THAT ONE M/S. JRD STOCK BROKERS HAS PROVIDED VARIOU S ENTRIES OF SALE PROCEEDS OF SHARES TO THE ASSESSEE THROUGH CORPORATION BANK NEW DELHI. ENQUI RY WAS CONDUCTED BY ADDL. DIT (INV.) AGRA AND FOUND THAT NO GENUINE TRANSACTION IN SALE/ PURCHASE OF SHARES HAS TAKEN PLACE THROUGH THIS BANK ACCOUNT AND THE BENEFICIARIES HAVE TAKEN ENTRIES BY PAYING IN CASH AN AMOUNT EQUIVALENT TO THE DRAFT/CHEQUE AMOUNT AND CERTAIN P REMIUM ON THAT. THE BROKER ON RECEIPT OF CASH FROM THE BENEFICIARIES DEPOSITED THE SAME IN THE BA NK ACCOUNT AND THEN ISSUED DRAFT/CHEQUE TO THE BENEFICIARIES. THE ADDL. DIT(INV.) AGRA HAS PROVID ED A LIST OF SUCH BENEFICIARIES. IN THE SAME LIST NAME OF THE ASSESSEE M/S. DINESH CHAND JAIN & SONS (HUF) 19/11 PEER KALYANI ROAD AGRA WAS AVAILABLE. IN VIEW OF THE INFORMATION RECE IVED FROM THE INVESTIGATION WING AND THE MATERIAL IN THE POSSESSION OF THE DEPARTMENT THE A SSESSING OFFICER HAVE REASON TO BELIEVE THAT INCOME OF RS.12 16 092/- SHOWN AS VARIOUS SALE PROC EEDS OF SHARES HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT IN THE CASE OF M/S. DINESH CHAND JAIN & SONS (HUF) 19/11 PEER KALYANI ROAD AGRA AND HE ISSUED NOTICE U/S. 148 OF THE ACT TO THE ASSESSEE ON 23.03 .2007 WHICH WAS SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE ON 31.03.2007. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO ISSUED DETAI LED QUESTIONNAIRE ON 14.09.2007 ASKING THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH VARIOUS INFORMATION MENTIONED B Y THE ASSESSING OFFICER AT PAGE NO. 2 TO 4. BUT THE ABOVE LETTER RETURNED UNSERVED. THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER AGAIN ISSUED NOTICE U/S. 142(1) ON 06.12.2007 FIXING THE CASE FOR 12.12.2007. THE SAME WAS RECEIVED BY SMT. LAXMI GOYAL WHEN IT WAS RETURNED WITH A LETTER STATING THAT SHE HAD NO CONCERN WITH M/S. DINESH CHAND JAIN & SONS (HUF) 19/11 PEER KALYANI ROAD AGRA AND THE PROCEE DINGS SHOULD BE FILED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO ISSUED NOTICE TO THE BROKER NAMELY M/ S. JRD STOCK BROKERS PVT. LTD. ANSARI ROAD NEW DELHI BUT NO SATISFACTORY REPLY WAS RECEIVED B Y HIM. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO ISSUED 3 NOTICE TO THE BRANCH MANAGER BANK OF INDIA NEW AG RA REQUIRING TO FURNISH COMPLETE DETAILS WITH REGARD TO DDS/CHEQUES DEPOSITED IN HIS BANK AC COUNT. IN RESPONSE TO THE SAME THE ASSESSING OFFICER RECEIVED A BANK STATEMENT OF M/S. DINESH CHAND HUF 19/11 PEER KALYANI ROAD AGRA BEARING ACCOUNT NO. 3391 AND OTHER INFOR MATION REQUIRED BY HIM. THE ASSESSING OFFICER AGAIN ISSUED NOTICE TO DINESH CHAND JAIN & SONS HUF AND THE SAME WAS DULY RECEIVED BY SHRI D.C. GOYAL ON 31.03.2007. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT HE WOULD NOT HAVE RECEIVED THE NOTICE HAD IT NOT BEEN IN ANY WAY LINK ED TO HIM BUT ON THE BASIS OF BANK STATEMENT OF M/S. DINESH CHAND & SONS HUF 19/11 PEER KALYAN I ROAD AGRA THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS OF THE OPINION THAT ALL THE DEPOSITS ARE CLEARLY THERE ON THE BASIS OF WHICH PROCEEDINGS U/S. 147 WERE INITIATED. HE ALSO OBSERVED THAT THE ACCOUNT NUMBER MENTIONED IN THE INFORMATION RECEIVED WAS ALSO IN THE NAME AS THAT OF M/S. DINESH CHAND & SON S HUF. IT ALL CLEARLY GOES TO SHOW THAT M/S. DINESH CHAND & SONS HUF AND M/S. DINESH CHAND JAIN & SONS HUF IS ONE AND THE SAME. HE DRAW HIS ATTENTION TO THE RULING OF HONBLE CALCUTT A HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF MOOL CHAND RAM PURIA VS. ITO & OTHERS 252 ITR 758 IN WHICH THE HO NBLE HIGH COURT HAS HELD THAT AFTER ENACTMENT OF SECTION 292B WHICH CAME INTO FORCE ON THE OCTOBER 1 1975 NO NOTICE SHALL BE DEEMED TO BE INVALID MERELY BY REASON OF ANY MISTAK E DEFECT OR OMISSION THEREIN IF THE NOTICE IS IN SUBSTANCE AND EFFECT IN CONFORMITY WITH OR ACCOR DING TO THE INTENT AND PURPOSES OF THIS ACT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FURTHER HELD THAT MERELY BECA USE OF THE NAME OF M/S. DINESH CHAND & SONS HUF 19/11 PEER KALYANI ROAD AGRA WAS MISIN TERPRETED AS M/S. DINESH CHAND JAIN & SONS HUF 19/11 PEER KALYANI ROAD AGRA DOES NOT MAKE THE PROCEEDINGS INVALID. THEREFORE THE PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE ARE VAL ID. 4 3. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER HE HAS GIVEN VARIOUS OPPORTUNITIES TO EXPLAIN THE CREDITS IN ITS BANK ACCOUNT RECEIVED THROUGH M/S. J RD STOCK BROKER NEW DELHI BUT THE SAME WAS NOT DONE BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO NOT PROVED THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF BROKER AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION. THEREFORE THE AMOUNT OF RS.12 16 092/- HE TREATED AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE U/S. 68 OF THE ACT AS UNEXPLAINED C ASH CREDIT BY COMPLETING THE ASSESSMENT U/S. 148/143(3) OF THE ACT ON 31.12.2007. AGGRIEVED BY T HE SAME THE ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY WHO VIDE IMPUGNED ORD ER DATED 23.01.2009 ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE BY HOLDING THAT NO NOTICE IN THE NAME OF A SSESSEE-HUF IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE HUF IS ASSESSED TO TAX BY THE DEPARTMENT WAS ISSUED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE NOTICE ISSUED IN THE NAME AND ADDRESS OF THE ASSESSEE OTHER THAN THA T MENTIONED IN THE RETURN WAS INVALID AND IF A VALID NOTICE IS NOT ISSUED AS REQUIRED THE PROCEED INGS TAKEN BY THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER IN PURSUANCE TO AN INVALID NOTICE AND SUBSEQUENT ORDE RS OF REASSESSMENT WOULD BE VOID AND INOPERATIVE. ACCORDINGLY THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE A UTHORITY QUASHED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER BY DECLARING IT VOID AB INITIO. NOW THE REVENUE HAS FI LED THE PRESENT APPEAL. 4. AT THE TIME OF HEARING THE LD. DR RELIED UPON T HE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND STATED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS RIGHTLY I SSUED NOTICE TO THE ASSESSEE ON THE ADDRESS GIVEN BY HIM IN THE BANK ACCOUNT WHICH IS ON THE BA SIS OF INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM THE ADDL. DIT(INV.) AGRA. HE FURTHER STATED THAT THE ONLY DI FFERENCE IN WRITING OF WORD :JAIN AT THE ADDRESS BECAUSE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS WRITTEN M /S. DINESH CHAND JAIN & SONS HUF WHEREAS BANK ACCOUNT HAS BEEN OPENED IN THE NAME OF DINESH CHAND & SONS HUF. THUS THERE IS HARDLY DIFFERENCE OF ANY OTHER THING WHICH MAY LEAD TO A C ONCLUSION THAT IT IS NOT THE ASSESSEE TO WHOM IT ISSUED THE NOTICE U/S. 148 OF THE ACT. MERELY WRITI NG OF WORD JAIN DOES NOT ABSOLVE THE ASSESSEE 5 FROM BEING TAXED BY THE DEPARTMENT. HE STATED THAT LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS QUASHED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER MERELY ON THE BASIS OF A TECHNICAL GROUND WHICH IS NOT PERMISSIBLE UNDER LAW. THEREFORE THE IMPUGNED ORDER MAY BE CANCELLED BY A CCEPTING THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE. 5. ON THE CONTRARY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSE E RELIED UPON THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. HE ALSO FILED A PAPER BO OK CONTAINING PAGES 1 TO 39 IN WHICH HE HAS ATTACHED COPY OF REJOINDER OF REMAND REPORT COPY O F DECISION OF PUNJAB AND HARYAN HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. NORTON MOTORS 275 ITR 595 ( P&H) COPY OF ENVELOP COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED IN THE CASE OF DINESH CHAND & SONS HUF U/S. 148 COPY OF LETTER DATED 12.12.2007 RETURNING THE NOTICE COPY OF NOTICE U/S. 142(1) DA TED 06.12.2007 ISSUED IN THE NAME OF M/S. DINESH CHAND JAIN & SONS HUF COPY OF SPEED POST SL IP COPY OF NOTICE U/S. 148 DATED 23.03.2007 COPY OF ORDER U/S. 143(1) IN THE CASE O F DINESH CHAND & SONS HUF COPY OF RETURN FILED FOR A.Y. 2000-01 WITH COPY OF CHALLAN AND LIS T OF ANNEXURES AND COPY OF SALE AND PURCHASE OF SHARES EFFECTED THROUGH JRD STOCK BROKERS (P) LT D. HE ALSO STATED THAT THE DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE SHAPE OF PAPER BOOKS ARE PART O F ASSESSMENT RECORD EXCEPT THE COPY OF APPEAL ORDER. HE ALSO DRAW OUR ATTENTION TOWARDS THE NOTIC E DATED 23.03.2007 ISSUED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S. 148 OF THE ACT WHICH IS IN THE NAME O F M/S. DINESH CHAND JAIN & SONS HUF 19/11 PEER KALYANI ROAD AGRA. HE FURTHER DRAW OUT ATTENT ION TOWARDS INCOME-TAX RETURN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE CHALLAN FOR MAKING THE PAYMENT OF TAX WHICH IS AT PAGE NO. 19 TO 22. HE STATED THAT IN THE INCOME-TAX RETURN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR IN DISPUTE 2000-01 THE ASSESSEE HAS MENTIONED HIS NAME AS DINESH CHAND & S ONS HUF 98-A VIJAY NAGAR COLONY AGRA WHEREAS THE ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUED NOTICE U/ S. 148 DATED 23.03.2007 AT THE ADDRESS DINESH CHAND JAIN & SONS HUF 19/11 PEER KALYANI R OAD AGRA WHICH IS TOTALLY INVALID. HE 6 FURTHER DRAW OUR ATTENTION TOWARDS ANOTHER DOCUMENT ARY EVIDENCE WHICH IS AT PAGE NO. 27 TO 38 SUPPORTING HIS VERSION THAT THE CORRECT ADDRESS OF THE ASSESSEE IS DINESH CHAND & SONS HUF 98- A VIJAY NAGAR COLONY AGRA THE DETAILS OF THE SAM E WE HAVE MENTIONED IN THE FOREGOING PARAGRAPH. IN THE END THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSE SSEE ALSO RELIED UPON THE VARIOUS DECISIONS MENTIONED BY THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY IN T HE IMPUGNED ORDER AND AS IN THE PAPER BOOK FILED BY HIM. HE REQUESTED THAT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE D EPARTMENT MAY BE DISMISSED. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE BOTH PARTIES AND PERUSED THE R ELEVANT RECORD AVAILABLE WITH US ALONGWITH ORDERS PASSED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES. WE HAVE ALSO CALLED THE ASSESSMENT RECORD IN DISPUTE. WE HAVE ALSO PERUSED THE SAME. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS RETURN AT TOTAL INCOME OF RS.2 14 540/- UNDER THE NAME M/S. DINESH CHAND & SONS HUF 98-A VIJAY NAGAR COLONY AGRA WHICH IS AT PAGE NO. 22 OF THE PAPER B OOK. WE HAVE PERUSED THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT RECORD AND FOUND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFI CER HAS ISSUED NOTICE DATED 23.03.2007 U/S. 148 OF THE ACT IN THE NAME OF DINESH CHAND JAIN & S ONS HUF 19/11 PEER KALYANI ROAD AGRA FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR IN DISPUTE. AS PER ASSESSME NT RECORD THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALSO ISSUED NOTICE U/S. 142(1) OF THE ACT TO M/S. DINESH CHAND JAIN & SONS HUF ON 06.12.2007 AT 19/11 PEER KALYANI ROAD AGRA THROUGH SPEED POST. THE SAME HAS RETURN BACK WITH THE REMARKS (AS PER AO ORDER SHEET DATED 12.12.2007) DENYING AN Y LINK WITH M/S. DINESH CHAND JAIN & SONS HUF BUT AS PER PAGE 32 OF THE ASSESSMENT RECORD S MT. LAXMI GOYAL WROTE A LETTER TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON 12.12.2007 STATING THAT THEY H AVE NO LINK WITH M/S. DINESH CHAND JAIN & SONS HUF 19/11 PEER KALYANI ROAD AGRA AND RETURN ED THE NOTICE IN ORIGINAL. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DEPUTED HIS INCOME-TAX INSPECTOR VIDE ORDER SHEET DATED 24.12.2007 TO OBTAIN SOME INFORMATION FROM THE BANK OF INDIA. THE MANAGER OF THE BANK OF INDIA AGRA HAD ALSO SUPPLIED ALL 7 NECESSARY INFORMATION REQUIRED BY THE ASSESSING OFF ICER TO HIS INCOME-TAX INSPECTOR. WE HAVE PERUSED THE LETTER DATED 28.12.2007 WRITTEN BY THE MANAGER OF THE BANK OF INDIA NEW AGRA BRANCH AND SUPPLYING THE BANK STATEMENT AND OTHER D OCUMENTS WRITTEN TO M/S. DINESH CHAND & SONS HUF ACCOUNT NO.3391 WITH HIM AND WE FIND THAT IN THE BANK ACCOUNT ALSO THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE HAS WRITTEN DINESH CHAND & SONS HUF AND NO T M/S. DINESH CHAND JAIN & SONS HUF. AS WE HAVE STATED ABOVE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUED NOTICE U/S. 148 OF THE ACT ON 23.03.2007 ON THE ADDRESS OF SHRI DINESH CHAND JAIN & SONS HUF 19/11 PEER KALYANI ROAD AGRA AND THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S. 142(1) ON 06.12.200 7 FIXING THE DATE OF HEARING BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR 12.12.2007 RETURNED BACK BY S MT. LAXMI GOYAL STATING THAT SHE HAD NO CONCERN WITH M/S. DINESH CHAND JAIN & SONS HUF 19/ 11 PEER KALYANI ROAD AGRA WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT TAKEN ANY PAIN T O ISSUE THE NOTICE TO THE ASSESSEE ON THE CORRECT ADDRESS MENTIONED IN THE RETURN FILED BY THE ASSESS EE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR IN DISPUTE WHICH IS M/S. DINESH CHAND & SONS HUF 98-A VIJAY NAGAR COL ONY AGRA WHICH IS AT PAGE NO. 22 OF THE ASSESSEES PAPER BOOK. AS PER ASSESSMENT RECORD AS WELL AS THE ORDER PASSED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER ISSU ED NOTICE U/S. 148 OF THE ACT TO THE ASSESSEE ON 23.03.2007 AND NOTICE U/S. 142(1) ON 06.12.2007 ONL Y WHICH ACCORDING TO US ARE ON INCORRECT ADDRESS OF THE ASSESSEE. WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT TH E ASSESSING OFFICER COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT IN A HURRY MANNER WITHIN A SHORT TIME ON 31.12.2007 WITHOUT ADOPTING THE PRESCRIBED PROCEDURE UNDER LAW FOR SERVING THE ASSESSEE VALIDLY AND ADDE D AMOUNT OF RS.12 16 092 AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE U/S. 68 OF THE ACT AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CRE DITS VIDE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 31.12.2007 U/S. 148/143(3) OF THE ACT. 8 7. AFTER THOROUGHLY GOING THROUGH THE ASSESSMENT RE CORD PRODUCED BY THE LD. DR AND DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE FILED BY THE LD. DR AND DOCUME NTARY EVIDENCE FILED BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE IN THE SHAPE OF PAPER BOOK CONTAINING PAGE NO. 1 TO 39 AS WELL AS VARIOUS CITATION CITED BY THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY IN THE I MPUGNED ORDER WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ISSUED A NOTICE U/S. 148 OF THE ACT ON 23.03.2007 TO THE PERSON OTHER THAN THE ASSESSEE WHICH IS INVALID AND THE SU BSEQUENT ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN COMPLETING THE ASSESSMENT IN THE NAME OF ASSESSEE W OULD NOT CURE THE DEFECT IN THE NOTICE SO AS TO SUSTAIN THE ASSESSMENT IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSES SEE-HUF AS PER THE RATIO OF HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF MADAN LAL AGARWAL VS. CIT (1983) 144 ITR 745 (ALL.). WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUED A NOTICE U/S. 148 OF THE ACT TO THE ASSESSEE ON INCORRECT ADDRESS AND COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT ON THAT BASIS WITHOUT APPLYING HIS MIND AND IN A MECHANICAL MANNER WHICH IS NOT P ERMISSIBLE UNDER LAW AS HELD BY JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF RADHA MACH INERY EXPORT VS. ITO (1992) 197 ITR 493 (ALL.). AS WE HAVE DISCUSSED IN THE FOREGOING PARAG RAPHS THAT NOTICE U/S. 148 OF THE ACT ISSUED ON THE INCORRECT ADDRESS AND COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT IN DISPUTE ON THE BASIS OF SAME IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION THAT ASSESSMENT IN DISPUTE IS ON THE BASIS OF INVALID NOTICE. IT IS CLEAR FROM THE ASSESSMENT RECORD THAT NO NOTICE IN THE NAME OF ASS ESSEE HUF AS PER RETURN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH WAS FILED PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S. 14 8 EXISTED ON AOS RECORD WAS ISSUED AND THE ASSESSMENT U/S.143(1) ALSO STOOD COMPLETED BY PROCE SSING THE RETURN IN THE NAME OF DINESH CHAND & SONS HUF 98-A VIJAY NAGAR COLONY AGRA AN D THEREAFTER NO NOTICE U/S. 142(1) OR 143(2) WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE-HUF. THEREFORE T HE NOTICE U/S. 148 IN THE NAME OF ASSESSEE OTHER THAN THAT OF ASSESS-HUF HAS BEEN HELD TO BE I NVALID AND ASSESSMENT COMPLETED ON THE STRENGTH OF INVALID NOTICE IS HELD TO BE INVALID. 9 8. KEEPING IN VIEW OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES D ISCUSSED IN THE FOREGOING PARAGRAPHS WITH THE SUPPORT OF ASSESSMENT RECORD AS WELL AS VA RIOUS DECISIONS RENDERED BY HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS RIGHTLY QUASHED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND ACCEPTED THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER. THEREFORE WE UPHOLD THE ORDER DATED 23.01.2009 PASSED BY THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY BY DISMISSING THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE. 9. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED. THE ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 16.11.20 11. SD/- SD/- (B.C. MEENA) (H.S. SIDHU) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 16 TH NOVEMBER 2011 *AKS/- COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT(A) BY ORDER 4. CIT CONCERNED 5. DR ITAT AGRA 6. GUARD FILE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR TRUE COPY