DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-3 (1), INDORE vs. SHRI SANJEEV PATNI, INDORE

PER MANISH BORAD, A.M

The above captioned appeal filed at the instance of the

Assessee & Cross Appeal by the Revenue for Assessment Year

2009-10 are directed against the orders of Ld. Commissioner of

Income Tax(Appeals) (in short ‘Ld. CIT]-I Indore dated 13.11.2017

which are arising out of the order u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 of the

Income Tax Act 1961(In short the ‘Act’) dated 23.03.2016 framed

by ACIT-3(1), Indore.

The Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal in ITA

No.62/Ind/2018:

Ground no. 1 :- On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner d in not holding that the reassessment proceedings of the Appellant were illegal as the initiated by the learned Assessing Officer without satisfying the mandatory jurisdictional condition set out in section 147 of the Income Tax Act. 1961. Ground no. 2 :- On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Commissioner (appeals) learned erred in not quashing the reassessment proceedings as illegal and void as the same were without issuing mandatory notice U/S 143 (2) of the Income Tax Act. 1961. Ground no. 3 :- On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner al erred in sustaining the disallowance made by the learned Assessing Officer of Appellant's for house rent allowance U/S 10 (13A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 of Rs. 3,40,000/- from his – salary income. Ground no. 4 :- On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner (appeals) erred in sustaining the disallowance made by the learned Assessing Officer of loss claimed by e Appellant under the head 'short term capital gains' of Rs. 53,37,250/- from sale of shares. Ground no. 5 :- On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner Appeals) erred in sustaining to the extent of Rs. 4,05,223/- the addition made by the learned Assessing Officer U/S 69 of

Sanjeev Patni

the Income Tax Act, 1961 towards alleged unexplained cash credits in Appellant's bank counts. Ground no. 6 :- On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, both the learned Commissioner (Appeals) and the learned Assessing Officer erred. in passing their respective orders without granting the Appellant an adequate opportunity of being heard. The orders passed by them are in contravention of the principles of natural justice and hence, bad in law. The Appellant reserves the right to add, alter or delete any of the above grounds with permission of the Hon'ble Tribunal.

The Revenue has raised following grounds of appeal in ITA

No.189Ind/2018:

1.Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case} Ld. CIT(A) was justified in holding the amount of Rs. 1}30}S6A74/- as Long Term Capital Gains and restricting the addition of Rs. 1,64,64,619/- to Rs. 4,05,223/- in view of findings of the assessing officer. 2.Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case Ld. CIT(A) was justified in treating the sum of Rs.1,30,56,474/- as proceeds liable to Long Term Capital Gains instead of Short Term Capital Gains without offering any opportunity to assessing officer and relying only on computation given by assessee for holding period. 3.Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case} Ld. CIT(A) was justified in restricting the addition of Rs. 1,64,64,619/- based on credits in bank accounts to Rs. 4,05,223/- only without giving any opportunity to the assessing officer regarding nature and source of deposits in the bank accounts. 4.Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case} Ld. CIT(A) in justified even when principles of natural justice have not been followed While deleting addition at SL. No.1, 2 & 3 above.

ITA No.62/Ind/2018 (Assessee’s appeal)

Sanjeev Patni

At the outset, learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that in

the appeal filed by the assessee, the assessee has raised the legal

ground as ground no.2 with regard to challenging the

reassessment proceedings as illegal and void as the same were

without issuing mandatory notice U/S 143 (2) of the Income Tax

Act. 1961. Since this ground no.2 being legal in nature goes to

the root of the matter, we have heard it at first.

of the assessee as filed in Return of Income u/s. 139 for the

assessment year 2009-10 is 49-B Chandra Nagar, A.B Road

Indore-452008 where his family resides. The return was filed on

18.09.2009. The notice u/s 148 was sent at “7-B Chandra

Nagar”. This was the address in which assessee used to reside

before 2003 for a very brief period of time. The notice u/s 148

was actually delivered to “49-B Chandra Nagar” and signed by

the father of assessee since this was within 200 meters radius

and in same compound. Further, the Reasons recorded by the

Assessing Officer u/s 148 dated 25.03.2015 addressed to 7-B

Chandra Nagar also state that “Mr Sanjeev Patni is residing in

E1102, Matri Elegance, Bannerghatta Road, Bangalore” and his

principal place of employment is at Bangalore only. In reply to 4

Sanjeev Patni

the notice u/s 148, it was stated that Income tax return already

filed for A.Y. 2009-10 may be considered as in response to

compliance u/s 148, thereby, reconfirming the address also.

Copy of reason reads as under:

“In continuation of proceedings, further the notice u/s. 142(1) for producing the books of account and other related documents registers, vouchers etc. in justification of income for the year under consideration i.e. A.Y. 2009-10 disclosed in the return filed in compliance of notice u/s. 148, fixing date of compliance on 29/06/2015 was issued on 25/06/2015 by speed post which was received back on 26/06/2015 with the remarks as “not available on the given address”.

In the Remand Report, it is stated that the notice u/s. 143(2)

dated 25.06.2015 was issued and was returned unserved. The

remand report at last 5th line onwards, reads as under:

“In continuation of the proceedings the notice u/s. 143(2) and 142(1) dated 25/06/2015 issued on the same address on which notice u/s. 148 was already served. The notice so issued u/s. 143(2) and 142(1) was not served and returned back with postal remark “�दए पते पर नह�ं” (copy of envelop with postal remark enclosed).”

The address mentioned in the envelope is 7-B Chandra Nagar,

A.B Road Indore. PB 28. The Assessing Officer, in the

Assessment Order has stated that only notice u/s. 142(1) was

issued on 25.06.2015 whereas in the Remand Report, he states

that in the same envelope, notice u/s. 143(2) was also there.

Further, in the remand report only, there is mention that since

Sanjeev Patni

the notice dt. 25.06.2015 was unserved, another notice u/s.

143(2) was issued. Same is mentioned at last line onwards as

under:

“Therefore notice u/s. 143(2) was again issued on the address mentioned on the latest return filed for A.Y. 2014-15 i.e. 49-B, Chandra Nagar, A.B. Road, Indore being last known address affixture was made by the ITI of this office (copy of affixture report of ITI is enclosed).”

It is mentioned in the remand report that the notice u/s. 143(2)

dt. 06.07.2015 was served by affixture. It was alleged that since

the door was locked, notice was affixed and two witnesses have

signed.

reassessment proceedings before the ld. CIT(A) claiming that the

notice u/s 143(2) of the I.T. Act was not served on the assessee.

But, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer.

Being aggrieved, the assessee is before this Tribunal.

the mandatory notice u/s 143(2) was not served on the assessee

and hence the entire reassessment proceedings completed by the

Assessing Officer are null and void. Ld. Counsel for the assessee

submitted that at the note of inspector, nowhere the details of

Inspector or witness, their names, address, father’s name or any

Sanjeev Patni

other identification is placed. It is a settled proposition of law that

service by affixture is a permissible mode of service, but a

detailed procedure as given under Rule 17 & 19 of the Order V of

1908 of Code of Civil Procedure is applicable which indicate that

notice by affixture can be resorted only as a last resort, after

exhausting all other modes of service. Notice by affixture can be

resorted only if Defendant refuses to sign the acknowledgement,

or where the serving officer, after using all due and reasonable

diligence, cannot find the defendant, who is absent from his

residence at the time when service is sought to be effected on him

at his residence and there is no likelihood of his being found at the

residence within a reasonable time and there is no agent

empowered to accept service of the summons on his behalf, nor

any other person on whom service can be made. Further, it is

the responsibility of the serving officer to affix a copy of the

summons on the outer door or some other conspicuous part of

the house in which the defendant ordinarily resides or carries on

business or personally works for gain and also to return the

original to the Court from which it was issued, with a report

endorsed thereon or annexed thereto stating that he has so

affixed the copy explaining the circumstances under which he did

Sanjeev Patni

so with the name and address of the person (if any) by whom the

house was identified and in whose presence the copy was affixed.

But, in the present case, still due process of law as above was not

followed. In fact, notice on the address (49-B, Chandra Nagar)

was never sent through post and the Inspector’s note is not

supported by any affidavit under Rule 19. His report could have

been accepted only if he would have given affidavit. The assessee

also applied to the Assessing Officer for cross-examination of the

Inspector and witness but the same was not done by the

Assessing Officer. Further, the facts related to affixture of notice

cannot be true in the light of the affidavit from Shri Rajiv Patni

(brother of assessee) wherein he submitted that no notice was

served on through affixure. Therefore, the service of notice by

affixture is not a valid service in the present case and thus, the

reassessment proceedings are bad-in-law and deserve to be

quashed.

Authorities and submitted that the Assessing Officer made all

possible efforts to serve the notice on the assessee including

affixure, therefore, the notice was rightly served on the assessee.

Sanjeev Patni

perused material available on record. We find that the notice u/s

148 was sent at “7-B Chandra Nagar”. This was the address in

which assessee used to reside before 2003 for a very brief period

of time. The reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer u/s 148

dated 25.03.2015 addressed to 7-B Chandra Nagar state that

“Mr Sanjeev Patni is residing in E1102, Matri Elegance,

Bannerghatta Road, Bangalore” and his principal place of

employment is at Bangalore only. Thus, even though the return

of income was filed from Indore address, the Assessing Officer

was well aware that the assessee was residing at Bangalore. In

reply to the notice u/s 148, it was stated that Income tax return

already filed for A.Y. 2009-10 may be considered as the return in

response to compliance u/s 148, thereby, reconfirming the

address also. We find that in the assessment order, there is no

mention of any notice u/s. 143(2) being issued to assessee. After

referring to the return filed u/s. 148 and mentioning that the

copy of reasons were provided, it was stated that the notice u/s.

142(1) for producing the books of account and other related

documents registers, vouchers etc. in justification of income for

the year under consideration i.e. A.Y. 2009-10 disclosed in the

Sanjeev Patni

return filed in compliance of notice u/s. 148, fixing date of

compliance on 29/06/2015 was issued on 25/06/2015 by speed

post which was received back on 26/06/2015 with the remarks

as “not available on the given address”. From the perusal of note

sheet, we find that that no mention is made of any notice issued

in the year 2015 particularly of notice u/s. 143(2). Further, in the

Remand Report, it was stated that the notice u/s. 143(2) was

issued dated 25.06.2015 and was returned unserved. But, in the

Assessment Order, the Assessing Officer stated that only notice

u/s. 142(1) was issued on 25.06.2015 whereas in the Remand

Report, he stateed that in the same envelope, notice u/s. 143(2)

was also there. Such notice u/s. 143(2) was never brought on

record. Further, in the remand report only, there is mention that

since the notice dt. 25.06.2015 was unserved, another notice

u/s. 143(2) was issued and in this notice also, there was no

dispatch no., thus, if this notice was actually issued, it should

have been given a dispatch no. It is also mentioned in the remand

report that the notice u/s. 143(2) dt. 06.07.2015 was served by

affixture. A note on affixture by the Inspector is put on notice

u/s. 143(2) wherein it was alleged that since the door was locked,

notice was affixed and two witnesses have signed. We find that

Sanjeev Patni

nowhere on the note of inspector, the details of Inspector or

witness, their names, address, father’s name or any other

identification is placed. Further, the assessee also applied to the

Assessing Officer for details of the witness and cross-examination

of Inspector and the Witness. But, the Assessing Officer did

nothing in this regard. We find that it is a settled proposition of

law that service by affixture is a permissible mode of service, but

a detailed procedure as given under Rule 17 of the Order V of

1908 of Code of Civil Procedure is applicable as under:

“17. Where the defendant or his agent or such other person as aforesaid refuses to sign the acknowledgement, or where the serving officer, after using all due and reasonable diligence, cannot find the defendant, who is absent from his residence at the time when service is sought to be effected on him at his residence and there is no likelihood of his being found at the residence within a reasonable time and there is no agent empowered to accept service of the summons on his behalf, nor any other person on whom service can be made, the serving officer shall affix a copy of the summons on the outer door or some other conspicuous part of the house in which the defendant ordinarily resides or carries on business or personally works for gain, and shall then return the original to the Court from which it was issued, with a report endorsed thereon or annexed thereto stating that he has so affixed the copy, the circumstances under which he did so, and the name and address of the person (if any) by whom the house was identified and in whose presence the copy was affixed.” Further, under Rule 19 it is provided that: "19. Examination of serving officer Where a summons is returned under rule 17, the Court shall, if the return under that rule has not been verified by the affidavit of the serving officer, and may, if it has been so verified, examine the serving officer on oath, or cause him to be so examined by another Court, touching his proceedings, and may make such further enquiry in the matter as it thinks fit; and shall either declare that the summons has been duly served or order such service as it thinks fit.”

Sanjeev Patni

can be resorted only as a last resort, after exhausting all other

modes of service. Notice by affixture can be resorted only if:

1.(a) Defendant refuses to sign the acknowledgement, or 2.(b) where the serving officer, after using all due and reasonable diligence, cannot find the defendant, who is absent from his residence at the time when service is sought to be effected on him at his residence and there is no likelihood of his being found at the residence within a reasonable time and there is no agent empowered to accept service of the summons on his behalf, nor any other person on whom service can be made. 3. It is the responsibility of the serving officer to: (i) affix a copy of the summons on the outer door or some other conspicuous part of the house in which the defendant ordinarily resides or carries on business or personally works for gain, (ii) return the original to the Court from which it was issued, with a report endorsed thereon or annexed thereto stating (a)that he has so affixed the copy, (b) the circumstances under which he did so, (c)the name and address of the person (if any) by whom the house was identified and in whose presence the copy was affixed.

the service, still due process of law as above was not followed. If

when he visited, the house was locked, he should have exercised

due diligence to verify as to when the assessee will return. In fact,

notice on this address was never sent through post. Why service

of notice on Bangalore address was never tried. How inspector

was sure that there is no likelihood of assessee being found at

the residence within a reasonable time. Also, circumstances

under which he had to do service by affixture were not

mentioned. Also, the name and address of the witness were not 12

Sanjeev Patni

mentioned. Also, the Inspector’s note is required to be supported

by any affidavit of inspector under Rule 19. His report could have

been accepted only if: -

(a) he has given affidavit; or (b) if he has not given affidavit, only after examination of serving officer (Inspector) on oath.

Further, in any case, the Court may make such further enquiry

in the matter as it thinks fit; and shall either declare that the

summons has been duly served or order such service as it thinks

fit. The assessee applied to the Assessing Officer for cross-

examination of the Inspector and witness. But, the same was not

done by the Assessing Officer. Therefore, we are of the view that

the service of notice by affixture is not a valid service in the

present case as service by affixture is substituted service and

since it is not direct or personal service upon the defendant, to

bind him by such mode of service, the mere formality of affixture

is not sufficient. The Assessing Officer failed to complied with the

requisite procedure as laid down in the procedure for service of

summons/notice and, therefore, the procedure laid down therein

cannot be surpassed because the intention of the legislature

behind these provisions is that strict compliance of the procedure

laid down therein has to be made. The expression ‘after using all

Sanjeev Patni

due and reasonable diligence’ appearing in rule 17 has been

considered in many cases and it has been held that unless a real

and substantial effort has been made to find the defendant after

proper enquiries, the Serving Officer cannot be deemed to have

exercised ‘due and reasonable diligence’. Before taking advantage

of rule 17, he must make diligent search for the person to be

served. Another requirement of rule 17 is that the Serving Officer

should state that he has affixed the copy of summons as per this

rule; the circumstances under which he did so; the name and

address of the person by whom the house or premises were

identified; in whose premises the copy of the summon was affixed

and these facts should also be verified by an affidavit of the

Serving Officer. This view is supported by the ratio laid down in

case of World Wide Exports (P.) Ltd. [2004] 91 ITD 519 (DEL). We

find that the facts related to affixture of notice cannot be true in

light of the affidavit from Shri Rajiv Patni (brother of assessee)

which states as under:

a. They reside in 49B Chandra Nagar, A.B Road Indore since past 17 years with his family members comprising of parents, wife, son and daughter-in-law. b. Also affirmed that his brother’s address was Bangalore address. His brother used this address as correspondence address for sake of convenience. c. Due to old age and medical reasons, the father was always at home along with one family member and the house was never locked. 14

Sanjeev Patni

d. It is not possible that any notice remain unserved with the remark that no one was available at home. e. In the Month of July 2015, it is not possible that any notice may be affixed by any income tax representative as many activities were going on in the house regarding wedding of Siddharth Patni (Son of Rajiv Patni). Thus, the fact that no notice was affixed and remained unserved

was confirmed through the above affidavit. Further, we are of the

view that the Inspector had to resort to service of notice by

affixture after purportedly exhausting all modes of service, but

nowhere in the assessment order and in the note sheet or in the

Inspector’s note, any details of service through Inspector was

mentioned. This view is supported by the ratio laid down in case

of Sanjay Badani (2014) 50 taxmann.com 457 (ITAT, Mumbai)

wherein it was held as under:

“We have to decide whether there was service of notice u/s.143(2) much less a proper service as per Rule 17 of Order V of CPC, which requires that before service of notice by affixture, notice server/service officer must make diligent search for person to be served and, he, therefore must take pain to find him and also to make mention of his efforts in report. The serving officer should also state in his report the circumstances under which he did so and the name and address of the person by whom house or premises were identified and in whose premises copy of summon was affixed, otherwise such service could not be accepted to be a legally valid service of notice u/s.143(2).”

(SC), the Hon’ble Apex Court held as under:

“The contention of the assessees was that at the relevant time they had no place of business. The report of the serving officer did not mention the names and addresses of the person who identified the 15

Sanjeev Patni

place of business of the assessees. That officer did not mention in his report nor in the affidavit filed by him that he personally knew the place of business of the assessee. Hence, the service of notice must be held to be not in accordance with the law. The possibility of his having gone to a wrong place could not be ruled out. Hence, it was not possible to hold that the assessees had been given a proper opportunity to put forward their case as required by section 33B.”

In the present case also, the serving officer could not state in his

report the any name and address of the witnesses who have

identified the house of the assessee and in whose presence the

notice was affixed. Further, the affidavit in assessment records is

missing thus in contravention of Rule 20 of Order V of CPC 1908.

We find that in case of Jagannath Prasad [1977] 110 ITR 27

(ALL.), the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court held as under:

“the report given by the process server was to the effect that he had made enquiries at a number of places but could not find out the assessee. After this report the ITO passed an order for affixture. From the mere fact that the process server could not find out the assessee it would not lead to the conclusion that the assessee was keeping out of the way for the purpose of avoiding service or that for any other reason the notice could not be served. The report did not indicate that more than one attempt was made by the process server. On the contrary, it indicated that on a single attempt he enquired at a number of places but could not find out the assessee. This could not constitute sufficient material for the satisfaction of the ITO that the conditions requisite for the application of Order V, rule 20, existed. The order of the ITO directing service by affixture was based on no relevant material on the record and, as such, had to be struck down. Accordingly, notices of demand and order of attachment of property were quashed.”

In present case also, there was only single attempt by the

inspector and the reason enumerated was that door was locked.

Thus the findings of above case are squarely applicable in 16

Sanjeev Patni

assessee’s case. In view of the above judicial pronouncements, we

are of the view that the Notice by affixture needs to be done in

accordance with procedure laid down in by Order V, rule 17-20 of

CPC. Our observations are also supported by the ratio laid down

in the following judicial pronouncements:

Naveen Chande [2010] 323 ITR 49 (Punjab & Haryana); Kishan Chand [2010] 328 ITR 173 (PUNJ. & HAR); CIT v. Shital Prasad Kharag Prasad[2006] 280 ITR 541/[2005] 147 Taxman 441; and RAM SINGH MATHUR [2007] 112 TTJ 989 (DELHI) (ITAT Delhi Bench).

“However, before arguing the matter on merit, the Ld. Counsel appearing for the assessee raised preliminary objection in regard to the serving of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act dated 31.08.2009 while initiating the assessment proceedings. The assessee company filed its return of income on 30.09.2008. It is submitted by the Ld. Counsel appearing for the assessee that the impugned assessment order u/s 143(2) of the Act was claimed to have been passed after due process of the law by serving notice in due time in terms of proviso to Section 143(2) but the same has not been served in terms of the procedure laid down by the provision under section 282 of the Act. In that view of the matter, it was ultimately contended by the Ld. AR that the impugned order is bad in law and is liable to be quashed.

Sanjeev Patni

Sanjeev Patni

“provided that no notice under this sub-section shall be served upon the assessee after the expiry of six months from the end of financial year in which return is furnished”. Therefore, admittedly the notice issued is beyond the period as stipulated under proviso of Section 143(2) of the Act and the entire proceedings was, thus, prayed to be dropped by the appellant. It is surprised to note that the photo copy of the Speed Post envelope dispatch No.1221 was placed on record by the revenue. With our limited understanding, w failed to follow that if the said envelope containing the notice is sent to the assessee and received by them then as to how the same could reach the sender i.e. the office of the concerned Revenue Officer and this could be kept in the file. Secondly the notice which has been claimed to have been served upon the assessee through office server the acknowledgement whereof speak about the details of the person receiving the same. In fact the notice server Shri Prem N Joshi failed to prove on record the Name/designation/identification of the person to whom the same was delivered. It was contended by the appellant that the signature of the impugned notice does not belong to any of the officer/Director or employee of the company. It is relevant to note that this fact has not been controverted by the revenue. No such evidence indicating receiving notice genuinely on behalf of the assessee is forthcoming from the revenue in order to substantiate that the service has actually been affected. The Ld. DR has not been able to satisfy us on this aspect. In that event we do not hesitate to conclude that the provision of service of notice as stipulated under Section 282 of the Act as if it is a summon issued by a court under the code of civil procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) has not been complied with in its true spirit, in the absence of disclosure of identification of the person to whom the service was ultimately effected. The Ld. A.O failed to bring any material on record to show that the notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was served on the assessee within the stipulated period i.e. 30.09.2009 before the expiry of 6 months from the end of the financial year in which the return is furnished. Thus, it cannot be held to be a valid service of notice on the assessee. In this regard we have considered the judgment relied upon by the Ld. AR some of which are discussed herein below:- The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of M.L. Narang/ R.L. Narang reported in (1981) 6 Taxmann 61

Sanjeev Patni

(Delhi). In this particular case Revenue has failed to show that the services was effected on 3.2.1969 either on the assessee concerned or in any other employees, relatives or any other authorised representatives. There was nothing on record to show the identity of the person on whom the service was effected and thus it was held that the service was not effected on the assessee concerned on 3.02.1969. On an identical situation the Hon,ble High Court of Allahabad in the case of Dr. Y.D. Singh, B.R.D. Medical College reported in (2012) 20 taxmann.com 174(All.), observed at para 5 that “it was claimed that the said notice was served on Shri Murli Dhar Vaish” – no such claim made by the Department that it was served on certain specific person. Later the server Inspector did not state any specific person on whom he made the delivery. It was further observed that personal service would not be a valid service of notice, if it has not been made either on the person mentioned there or an agent duly authorised to receive notice as provided under Section 282 of the Act. Finally, since there have been no entry in the order sheet regarding the issuance and service of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act, the contention of the assessee that no such service was ever issued what is to say of service of the same on the assessee or on his authorised representative has been accepted by the court. In another judgment the Hon’ble Tribunal, Lucknow Benches in the case of Nripendra Mishra reported in (2009) 121 TTJ 701 (Lucknow) held in para 11 that “In fact the revenue had not proved the identity of person. Thus the revenue had not proved on record that the notice under section 143(2) was served upon the agent of the assessee. In such circumstances, the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer had to be annulled” . 4. Thus, taking into consideration of the entire aspect of the matter we are of the considered view that unless there is service of notice in accordance with provision under Section 282 of the Act separately specifying mode of service of notice, it cannot be treated as valid service of notice. In the case in hand the Revenue has failed to show, that service of notice under Section 143(2) of the Act effected within the stipulated time under the provisions of Section 143(2) of the Act on the assessee or on any of their employees/ relatives or any authorized representatives particularly in adherence to provision under Section 282 of the Act either by post or as if it were a summons issued by a Court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 908).

Sanjeev Patni

In that view of the matter the service of notice under Section 143(2) of the Act, in our considered opinion is no service. Since the initiation of the proceeding is not in adherence to the prescribed rules, the entire proceeding is vitiated and hence quashed. Consequently, all action taken there under is bad. The impugned addition, made by the Revenue is, thus, hereby deleted. 5. In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed.”

judicial pronouncements, we are of the view that the

reassessment proceedings, so initiated, are bad in law as

the Assessing Officer failed to serve the notice u/s 143(2)

of the I.T. Act on the assessee. Accordingly, we quash the

assessment order framed u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 of the IT Act

for A.Y.2009-10.

we are refraining ourselves to decide other grounds on

merits raised in the appeal filed by the assessee and

Revenue becoming now academic in nature as the same

would not serve any purpose. Thus, since the assessment

order is quashed, the grounds raised in the appeal of the

assessee stand allowed whereas the grounds raised in the

appeal of the Revenue stand dismissed.

Sanjeev Patni

Order pronounced as per Rule 34 of ITAT Rules, 1963 on 01.09.2021. Sd/- Sd/-

(RAJPAL YADAV) (MANISH BORAD) VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

�दनांक /Dated : 01.09.2021 !vyas!

Copy to: The Appellant/Respondent/CIT concerned/CIT(A) concerned/ DR, ITAT, Indore/Guard file. By Order, Asstt.Registrar, I.T.A.T., Indore