SHRI PURAN CHAND BAIRWA, JAIPUR v. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7-2, JAIPUR

ITA 629/JPR/2018 | 2008-2009
Pronouncement Date: 07-11-2019 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 62923114 RSA 2018
Assessee PAN AHVPB6301M
Bench Jaipur
Appeal Number ITA 629/JPR/2018
Duration Of Justice 1 year(s) 5 month(s) 28 day(s)
Appellant SHRI PURAN CHAND BAIRWA, JAIPUR
Respondent INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7-2, JAIPUR
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 07-11-2019
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted SMC
Tribunal Order Date 07-11-2019
Last Hearing Date 13-08-2018
First Hearing Date 13-08-2018
Assessment Year 2008-2009
Appeal Filed On 09-05-2018
Judgment Text
VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JAIPUR BENCHES SMC JAIPUR JH FOT; IKY JKO] U;KF;D LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE : SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO JUDICIA L MEMBER VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ ITA NO. 629/JP/2018 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z@ ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2008-09 SHRI PURAN CHAND BAIRWA PLOT NO.22 RAINBOW COLONY NEAR MAUSM VIBHAG BUDHSINGHPURA JAIPUR CUKE VS. THE ITO WARD- 7(2) JAIPUR LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO .: AHVPB 6301 M VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS @ ASSESSEE BY :SHRI S.L. PODDAR ADVOCATE JKTLO DH VKSJ LS@ REVENUE BY : SHRI A.K. MAHLA JCIT- DR LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF HEARING : 26/09/2019 ?KKS'K .KK DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 07 /11/2019 VKNS'K@ ORDER PER VIJAY PAL RAO JM THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 13-03-2018 OF LD. CIT(A) -3 JAIPUR FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 -09 WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 1. THE LD. CIT(A) NOT ALLOWED THE DEDUCTION CLAIM ED BY THE ASSESSEE U/S 54F OF RS. 16 51 000/- FOR PURCHASE OF RESIDENTIAL PLOT AND CONSTRUCTION ON IT OF RS.2 00 000/- I.E. TOTAL INVE STMENT IN RESIDENTIAL PLOT OF RS. 18 51 000/- AGAINST THE CAPITAL GAIN AR ISE ON SALE OF AGRICULTURE LAND AND CONFIRMED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO. 2 ITA NO. 629/JP/2018 SHRI PURAN CHAND BAIRWA VS ITO WARD- 7(2) JA IPUR 2. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) TAKING THE COST OF AGRICULTU RAL LAND DON 01-04-1998 OF RS. 20 000/- INSTEAD OF RS. 1 00 000/- 2.1 THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO RAISED THE ADDITIONAL GRO UNDS AS UNDER:- 1. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ASSES SMENT FRAMED BY THE AO AS THE SAME DESERVES TO BE QUASHED HAVING BEEN COMPLETED WITHOUT SERVICE OF NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE I.T. ACT 1961. 2. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ASSES SMENT FRAMED BY THE AO AS THE SAME DESERVES TO BE QUASHED ON THE GROUND THAT NOTICE U/S 148 WAS ISSUED PRIOR TO SANCTION U/ S 152 (1). 3. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ASSES SMENT FRAMED BY THE AO AS THE SAME DESERVES TO BE QUASHED ON THE GROUND THAT AO ERRED IN RECORDING REASON ASSUMING THAT LAN D SOLD WAS WITHIN 8 KILOMETERS FROM LOCAL LIMITS OF JAIPUR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION IN TERMS OF SECTION 2(14)(III)(B) AS IT STOOD THEN. 2.2 DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING THE LD.AR OF THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT DUE TO INADVERTENT MISTAKE ON THE PART OF THE ANOTH ER COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE WHO REPRESENTED BEFORE THE AO AS WELL AS LD. CIT(A) CO ULD NOT TAKE THESE GROUNDS OF APPEALS AND HENCE THE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL HAVE BEEN RAISED WHICH GOES TO THE CRUX AND ROOT OF THE MATTER. HE FURTHER CONTEND ED THAT THE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE INVOLVE ISSUES WHICH ARE PUR ELY LEGAL IN NATURE AND THEREFORE THE SAME SHOULD BE ADMITTED FOR ADJUDIC ATION ON MERIT. IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION THE LD.AR OF THE ASSESSEE RELIED ON THE DECISION OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF NTPC LTD. VS CIT (1998) 229 I TR 383 AS WELL AS THE DECISION 3 ITA NO. 629/JP/2018 SHRI PURAN CHAND BAIRWA VS ITO WARD- 7(2) JA IPUR OF HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF RAVINDRA ARORA VS ACIT (2018) 404 ITR 452. THUS THE LD.AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITT ED THAT THERE CAN BE NO BAR ON THE ASSESSEE TO RAISE THE LEGAL GROUNDS FOR THE FIR ST TIME BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL WHEN ALL THE RELEVANT MATERIAL FOR DECIDING THE ISSUE IN QUESTION ALREADY EXISTS ON THE RECORD AND NO FURTHER INVESTIGATION OF FACT IS REQU IRED.. 2.3 ON THE OTHER HAND LD. DR VEHEMENTLY OBJECTED T O THE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSE SSEE HAS NOT RAISED ANY OBJECTION AGAINST THE VALIDITY OF REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT AS WELL AS SERVICE OF NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT AS WELL AS NATURE OF THE LAND SOLD B Y THE ASSESSEE BEING CAPITAL ASSET. THEREFORE THE ASSESSEE CANNOT RAISE THESE GROUNDS FIRST TIME AT THIS STAGE WHEN SOME OF THE GROUNDS REQUIRE VERIFICATION AND INVEST IGATION OF FACTS. 2.4 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AS WELL AS THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD ON THE POINT OF ADMISSION OF AD DITIONAL GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE. AS REGARDS THE GROUND NO. 1 OF THE ASSESS EE REGARDING NON-SERVICE OF NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT ALL THE FACTS AND MATER IALS IN RESPECT OF SERVICE OF NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT ARE PART OF THE ASSESSMENT RECOR D AND THEREFORE NO FRESH FACTS ARE REQUIRED TO BE VERIFIED OR INVESTIGATED FOR THE PURPOSE OF ADJUDICATING THIS GROUND. FURTHER THE SERVICE OF NOTICE U/S 148 OF TH E ACT IS AN ISSUE WHICH GOES TO THE ROOT OF THE MATTER AND VERY DECISION OF THE AO TO PROCEED REASSESSMENT 4 ITA NO. 629/JP/2018 SHRI PURAN CHAND BAIRWA VS ITO WARD- 7(2) JA IPUR PROCEEDINGS. THEREFORE IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF NTPC LTD VS CIT (SUPRA) THE ADDITIONAL GR OUND NO. 1 OF THE ASSESSEE IS ADMITTED. 3.1 AS REGARDS THE GROUND NO. 2 OF THE ASSESSEE TH OUGH THIS IS REGARDING THE PRIOR APPROVAL / SANCTION U/S 152(1) OF THE ACT FOR ISSUING NOTICE U/S 148 AND THEREFORE THIS IS PURELY A MATTER OF FACT WHICH IS AVAILABLE ON THE ASSESSMENT RECORD. ON VERIFICATION OF THE ASSESSMENT RECORD I T IS FOUND THAT AO OBTAINED REQUISITE APPROVAL/ SANCTION FROM THE COMPETENT AUT HORITY BEFORE ISSUING NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT. THEREFORE THE ADDITIONAL GROUND NO . 2 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS REJECTED WHEN THE APPROVAL / SANCTION IS ALREADY OB TAINED AND AVAILABLE ON RECORD. 4.1 THE ADDITIONAL GROUND NO. 3 OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE ISSUE OF LAND IN QUESTION IS NOT CAPITAL ASSET IN TERMS OF SECTION 2(14) OF T HE ACT. THIS ADDITIONAL GROUND HAS BEEN RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE TO CONTEND THAT THE LAN D SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE WAS BEYOND 8 KM FROM LOCAL LIMIT OF JAIPUR MUNICIPAL CO RPORATION. IT IS PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT THE ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ADDIT IONAL GROUND NO. 3 IS FACTUAL IN NATURE TO DECIDE WHETHER THE LAND IN QUESTION IS SI TUATED IN AN AREA WHICH IS BEYOND 8 KM FROM JAIPUR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION LIMITS. THER EFORE UNTIL AND UNLESS THIS FACT IS VERIFIED BY CONDUCTING A PROPER ENQUIRY AND INVESTIGATION WHICH REQUIRE THE PHYSICAL VERIFICATION ON THE GROUND AND CANNOT BE C ONSIDERED ON THE BASIS OF 5 ITA NO. 629/JP/2018 SHRI PURAN CHAND BAIRWA VS ITO WARD- 7(2) JA IPUR SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE. THE AO HAS DULY RECORD ED THIS FACT IN PARA 3 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER AS PER REPORT OF TEHSILDAR SANGANER VIDE LETTER DATED 24-02-2016 THAT THE LAND IN QUESTION WAS STATED TO BE SITUATE D AT 5.10 KM FROM JAIPUR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION LIMIT. THIS FACTUAL FINDING H AS NOT BEEN CHALLENGED BY THE ASSESSEE EITHER BEFORE THE AO OR BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A). THEREFORE THE ASSESSEE CANNOT SET UP A NEW CASE AT THIS STAGE WHICH REQUIR ES THE INVESTIGATION OF FACTS. HENCE IN VIEW OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF TH E CASE THIS ADDITIONAL GROUND NO. 3 OF THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE ADMITTED AND THE SA ME IS REJECTED. 5.1 THE ADDITIONAL GROUND NO. 1 IS REGARDING VALIDI TY OF INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS U/S 147/148 FOR WANT OF SERVICE OF NOTI CE ISSUED U/S 148 OF THE ACT. THE LD.AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE AO ISS UED AND SENT NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT AT INCOMPLETE ADDRESS OF THE ASSESSEE AND T HEREFORE THE NOTICE WAS NOT SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE. HE HAS REFERRED TO NOTICE DATED 30-03-2015 ISSUED U/S 148 OF THE ACT AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ADDRESS OF TH E ASSESSEE GIVEN IN THE NOTICE AS WELL AS ADDRESS OF THE ASSESSEE GIVEN IN THE POSTAL ADDRESS IS INCOMPLETE AND RATHER WRONG. THEREFORE FROM THE RECORDS ITSELF IT IS CL EAR THAT THE SAID NOTICE IS NOT SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE FOR WANT OF COMPLETE ADDRE SS/ CORRECT ADDRESS OF THE ASSESSEE. HENCE THERE WAS NO SERVICE OF NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT AND CONSEQUENTLY THE REASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE AO IS WITHOUT JURISDICTION. THE 6 ITA NO. 629/JP/2018 SHRI PURAN CHAND BAIRWA VS ITO WARD- 7(2) JA IPUR LD.AR OF THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT IT IS NOT ONLY THE CASE OF INCORRECT ADDRESS ON THE NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT BUT THE NO TICE U/S 142(1) OF THE ACT WAS ALSO ISSUED AT WRONG ADDRESS AND FINALLY THE NOTICE DATED 22-02-2016 ISSUED U/S 142(1) WAS ISSUED BY THE AO AT CORRECT ADDRESS OF T HE ASSESSEE. IN RESPONSE TO SUCH NOTICE THE ASSESSEE APPEARED BEFORE THE AO AND FIL ED THE RETURN OF INCOME. THUS THE FIRST NOTICE SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE WAS DATED 10-02-2016 WHICH IS BEYOND THE LIMITATION OF SERVICE OF NOTICE U/S 148 AND MERE AP PEARANCE OF FILING OF RETURN OF INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE WILL NOT CURE THE ILLEGALITY IN THE INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS U/S 147/148 OF THE ACT. THE LD.AR OF THE ASSESSEE R ELIED ON THE DECISION OF HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF HARJEET SURAJPRAKA SH GIROTRA VS UNION OF INDIA & ORS 266 TAXMAN 29. 5.2 ON THE OTHER HAND THE LD. DR HAS SUBMITTED THA T NOTICE U/S 148 WAS ISSUED WELL IN TIME BY THE AO AND SENT THROUGH REGD. POST AT THE ADDRESS OF THE ASSESSEE. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT HAVI NG PAN AND IS NOT FILING ANY RETURN OF INCOME. THEREFORE THE PROCEEDINGS U/S 14 8 OF THE ACT WERE INITIATED ON THE BASIS OF THE INFORMATION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SOLD AN IMMOVABLE PROPERTY DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. HE FURTHER SUB MITTED THAT THE AO ISSUED THE VALID NOTICE WITHIN THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION AND TH EREAFTER THE ASSESSEE APPEARED BEFORE THE AO AND FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME. THUS IN VIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF 7 ITA NO. 629/JP/2018 SHRI PURAN CHAND BAIRWA VS ITO WARD- 7(2) JA IPUR SECTION 292BB THE ASSESSEE CANNOT RAISE THE OBJECT ION OF SERVICE OF NOTICE AFTER COMPLETION OF ASSESSMENT. IN REJOINDER THE LD.AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DULY RAISED THE OBJECTION OF NON-SERVI CE OF NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT VIDE LETTER DATED 22-02-2016. 5.3 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND REL EVANT MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IT IS MANIFEST FROM THE RECORD THAT THE AO ISSUED NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT ON 30-03-2015 WHICH WAS SENT THROUGH REGISTERED POS T DATED 31-03-2015. THE ASSESSMENT WAS REOPENED ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATIO N THAT ASSESSEE HAS SOLD AN IMMOVABLE PROPERTY DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERAT ION. THE AO HAS GIVEN THE ADDRESS OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE NOTICE SHRI PURAN CHAND S/O RAM GOPAL SANGANER JAIPUR. THE SAME ADDRESS IS GIVEN IN THE POSTAL RECEIPT BUT WITH A PIN CODE 302001. SIMILARLY THE AO HAS ALSO ISSUED NOTICE U/ S 142(1) DATED 8-05-2015 AT THE SAME ADDRESS. ON PERUSAL OF THE RECORD IT IS NOTED THAT SAID NOTICE WAS RECEIVED BACK UNSERVED WITH POSTAL DEPARTMENT REMARKS THAT ADDRESS IS INCOMPLETE. THE AO HAS TAKEN THE ADDRESS OF THE ASSESSEE FROM THE R EGISTERED SALE DEED DATED 19- 05-2007 VIDE WHICH THE LAND IN QUESTION WAS SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ADDRESS OF THE ASSESSEE AS PER REGISTERED SALE DEED IS CLEARLY MENTIONED AS RESIDENT OF VILLAGE: KISHOREPURA TEHSIL: SANGANER DISTT. JAIP UR (RAJASTHAN). THE LD.AR OF THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT EVEN THE PIN CODE GIVEN I N THE POSTAL RECEIPT IS NOT THE 8 ITA NO. 629/JP/2018 SHRI PURAN CHAND BAIRWA VS ITO WARD- 7(2) JA IPUR PINCODE OF THE ASSESSEE'S VILLAGE OR AREA. IT IS CL EAR FROM THE RECORD THAT THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 148 OF THE ACT WAS SENT AT INCOMPLETE AN D INCORRECT ADDRESS OF THE ASSESSEE. SIMILARLY THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE AO U /S 142(1) OF THE ACT AT THE SAME INCORRECT AND INCOMPLETE ADDRESS WAS RECEIVED BACK WITH THE POSTAL DEPARTMENT REMARKS THAT ADDRESS IS INCOMPLETE. IN SUCH FAC TS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IT IS DISCERNIBLE THAT THE AO HAS NOT PERFORMED HIS PART OF SENDING THE VALID NOTICE TO THE ASSESSEE. ONCE THE AO HAS FAILED IN PERFORMI NG HIS DUTY TO ISSUE PROPER AND VALID NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT DESPITE THE FACT TH AT COMPLETE ADDRESS OF THE ASSESSEE IS AVAILABLE IN THE SALE DEED THEN THE APP EARANCE AND PARTICIPATION OF THE ASSESSEE AFTER MORE THAN A YEAR FROM THE DATE OF EX PIRY OF LIMITATION OF ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT WILL NOT RECTIFY THE ILLE GALITY AND DEFECT IN ISSUING AND SERVING OF NOTICE 148 OF THE ACT. ONLY WHEN THE AO HAS PERFORMED HIS PART PROPERLY AND ISSUED THE NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT W ITHIN THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION AND THE SAME IS SENT AT THE CORRECT ADDRESS OF THE ASSE SSEE. IF THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBSEQUENTLY APPEARED AND PARTICIPATED IN THE ASSES SMENT AND HAS NOT RAISED ANY OBJECTION REGARDING THE SERVICE OF NOTICE U/S 148 O F THE ACT OR ANY OTHER NOTICES THEN THE ASSESSEE IS NOT PERMITTED TO RAISE SUCH AN OBJECTION OF SERVICE OF NOTICE AFTER COMPLETION OF ASSESSMENT. IN THIS CASE THE ASSESSEE FIRST TIME APPEARED BEFORE THE AO ON 22-02-2016 AND ASSESSEE DULY RAISED THIS OBJECTION VIDE 9 ITA NO. 629/JP/2018 SHRI PURAN CHAND BAIRWA VS ITO WARD- 7(2) JA IPUR LETTER DATED 22-02-2016 THAT THE ALLEGED NOTICE IS SUED U/S 148 OF THE ACT WAS NOT RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE. ONCE THE ASSESSEE HAS RAI SED THIS OBJECTION DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING THEN THE PROVISIONS OF SECTIO N 292BB OF THE ACT CANNOT BE PRESSED INTO SERVICE. THERE IS NO QUARREL ON THE PO INT THAT IF THE AO HAS ISSUED A PROPER NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT WITHIN THE LIMITA TION AND THE SAME IS SENT THROUGH REGISTERED POST AT THE CORRECT ADDRESS OF THE ASSES SEE THEN EVEN THERE IS AN IRREGULARITY AND INFRACTION IN THE SERVICE OF SAID NOTICE BUT THE ASSESSEE HAS APPEARED AND PARTICIPATED IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEED ING WITHOUT RAISING ANY OBJECTION THEN AS PER PROVISO TO SECTION 292BB THE ASSESSEE IS NOT PERMITTED TO RAISE SUCH AN OBJECTION OF NOTICE NOT SERVED UPON H IM AFTER COMPLETION OF ASSESSMENT. FOR READY REFERENCE SECTION 292BB IS QU OTED AS UNDER:- [NOTICE DEEMED TO BE VALID IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCE S. 292BB. WHERE AN ASSESSEE HAS APPEARED IN ANY PROCEEDING OR CO-OPERATED IN ANY INQUIRY RELATING TO AN ASSESSMENT OR REASSESSMENT IT SHALL BE DEEMED THAT ANY NOTICE UNDER ANY PROVISION OF THIS ACT WHICH IS RE QUIRED TO BE SERVED UPON HIM HAS BEEN DULY SERVED UPON HIM IN TIME IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT AND SUCH ASSESSEE SHALL BE PRECLUDED FROM TAKIN G ANY OBJECTION IN ANY PROCEEDING OR INQUIRY UNDER THIS ACT THAT THE NOTIC E WAS ( A ) NOT SERVED UPON HIM; OR ( B ) NOT SERVED UPON HIM IN TIME; OR ( C ) SERVED UPON HIM IN AN IMPROPER MANNER: PROVIDED THAT NOTHING CONTAINED IN THIS SECTION SHALL APPLY WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED SUCH OBJECTION BEFORE THE COMPLETION OF SUCH ASSESSMENT OR REASSESSMENT. ] 10 ITA NO. 629/JP/2018 SHRI PURAN CHAND BAIRWA VS ITO WARD- 7(2) JA IPUR IT IS NOTED IN THE CASE IN HAND THAT THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT NOTICE ISSUED BY THE AO U/S 148 WAS SENT THROUGH REGISTERED POST ON 31-03-2 015 WHICH IS ON THE LAST DATE OF LIMITATION FOR ISSUING THE NOTICE AND SAID NOTI CE WAS SENT AT THE INCORRECT AND INCOMPLETE ADDRESS OF THE ASSESSEE. EVEN THE PINCOD E GIVEN IN THE POSTAL ADDRESS IS ALSO INCORRECT. THIS INCORRECT AND INCOMPLETE ADDR ESS AND NON-SERVICE OF NOTICE IS FURTHER CORROBORATED BY THE FACTS THAT SUBSEQUENT N OTICE ISSUED BY THE AO U/S 142(1) ON 8-05-2015 WAS ALSO RECEIVED BACK UNSERVED WITH THE POSTAL REMARKS THAT ADDRESS IS INCOMPLETE. THEREFORE IT IS A FAILU RE ON THE PART OF THE AO TO ISSUE A VALID NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT AND VALID SERVICE O F THE SAME ON THE ASSESSEE THAT TOO NOTICE WAS SENT ON THE LAST DATE OF LIMITATION THEN NON-SERVICE OF SUCH NOTICE LEAVES NO SCOPE FOR THE AO TO TAKE ANY FURTHER STE P TO SERVE THE NOTICE ON THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER THE AO HAS NOT TAKEN ANY FURTHER STEP EVEN TO SERVE THE NOTICE AT CORRECT ADDRESS OF THE ASSESSEE. ONLY A NOTICE U /S 142(1) DATED 22-02-2016 WAS ISSUED AT CORRECT ADDRESS OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREFOR E THE AO SUBSEQUENTLY REALIZED AND ADMITTED THE FACT THAT EARLIER NOTICES U/S 148 AS WELL AS 142(1) OF THE ACT WERE ISSUED AND SENT AT THE INCORRECT AND INCOMPLETE ADD RESS OF THE ASSESSEE. HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF HARJEET SURAJPRAKA SH GIROTRA VS UNION OF INDIA 266 TAXMAN 29 HAS ELABORATELY ANALYZED RELEVANT PRO VISIONS OF SECTION 148 149 AND 282 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 ON THE POINT OF VALID NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE 11 ITA NO. 629/JP/2018 SHRI PURAN CHAND BAIRWA VS ITO WARD- 7(2) JA IPUR ACT AS WELL AS SERVICE OF THE SAME ON THE ASSESSEE AND FINALLY HELD IN PARA 17 TO 19 AS UNDER:- 17. SINCE THE DELIVERY OF NOTICE COULD NOT BE MAD E AT THE ADDRESS OF THE ASSESSEE AVAILABLE IN PAN DATABASE BY VIRTUE OF TH E FURTHER PROVISO TO SUB-RULE (2) OF RULE 127 THE COMMUNICATION HAD TO BE DELIVE RED AT THE ADDRESS AS AVAILABLE WITH THE BANKING COMPANY. 18. IT IS UNDISPUTED THAT THE DEPARTMENT HAD ACCESS TO THE PETITIONERS BANK ACCOUNT. IT IS PRECISELY FROM THE ACTIVITIES I N SUCH BANK ACCOUNT THAT THE DEPARTMENT HAD GATHERED THE MATERIAL PRIMA FACIE BE LIEVING THAT THE INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX HAD ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. IN TERMS OF RULE 172 AND IN PARTICULAR SUB-RULE (2) THEREFORE HAVING REGARD TO THE FURTHE R PROVISO THEREIN THE DEPARTMENT HAD TO DELIVER THE NOTICE OF REASSESSMEN T AT THE PETITIONERS ADDRESS GIVEN BY HER TO THE BANK WHERE HER ACCOUNT WAS MAIN TAINED. NO SUCH STEP WAS TAKEN. SERVICE OF NOTICE THEREFORE WAS NOT COMPLE TE. IN ABSENCE OF SERVICE OF NOTICE BEFORE THE LAST DATE ENVISAGED UNDER SECTION 149 OF THE ACT FOR SUCH PURPOSE THE ASSESSING OFFICER COULD NOT HAVE PROCE EDED FURTHER WITH THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. HIS CONSEQUENTIAL STEPS F OR ATTEMPTING TO SERVICE THE NOTICES OF SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT WERE OF NO CONSEQUEN CES. REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT WAS INVALID. NO VALID ASSESSMENT THEREON COULD HAVE BEEN FRAMED. 19. IN THE RESULT THE IMPUGNED NOTICE DATED 15-03- 2018 AND THE CONSEQUENTIAL ORDER OF REASSESSMENT PASSED BY THE A SSESSING OFFICER ARE SET ASIDE. ALL SUBSEQUENT STEPS FOR COERCIVE RECOVERY OF THE T AX DUES ARISING OUT OF SUCH ORDER OF ASSESSMENT ARE ALSO SET ASIDE. THE ATTACHM ENT OF THE PETITIONERS BANK ACCOUNTS WOULD THEREFORE STAND NULLIFIED. THE PET ITION IS ALLOWED AND DISPOSED OFF ACCORDINGLY. 5.4 IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AS DISCUSSED ABOVE I AM OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THERE WAS NO VA LID NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT AND CONSEQUENTLY THE AO HAS INITIATED PROCEEDINGS U/S 1 47/148 OF THE ACT AND PASSED IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDER WITHOUT JURISDICTION WHIC H RENDERS INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS AS WELL AS REASSESSMENT ORDER INVALID A ND VOID ABINITIO. HENCE THE SAME IS QUASHED. SINCE THE REASSESSMENT IS QUASHED BEING INVALID THEREFORE THE 12 ITA NO. 629/JP/2018 SHRI PURAN CHAND BAIRWA VS ITO WARD- 7(2) JA IPUR OTHER GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE BECOME INFRUCT UOUS. THUS THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 6.0 IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS AL LOWED. . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 07/11/2019. SD/- FOT; IKY JKO (VIJAY PAL RAO) U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER TK;IQJ@ JAIPUR FNUKAD@ DATED:- 07 /11/ 2019 *MISHRA VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSFKR@ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ@ THE APPELLANT-SHRI PURAN CHAND BAIRWA JAIPUR 2. IZR;FKHZ@ THE RESPONDENT- THE ITO WARD- 7(2) JAIPUR 3. VK;DJ VK;QDRVIHY ) @ CIT(A) 4. VK;DJ VK;QDR@ CIT 5. FOHKKXH; IZFRFUF/K] VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ@ DR ITAT JAIPUR 6. XKMZ QKBZY@ GUARD FILE (ITA NO.629/JP/2018) VKNS'KKUQLKJ@ BY ORDER LGK;D IATHDKJ@ ASSISTANT. REGISTRAR