CIT vs. MASCOMPTEL INDIA LTD

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI . . . ITA 1/2012 . . . CIT ..... Appellant . Through Mr. N. P. Sahni and Mr. Ruches Sinha, Advocates . . . versus . . . . . MASCOMPTEL INDIA LTD ..... Respondent . Through Mr. S. Krishnan, Adocate . . . . . CORAM: . HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA . HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR . . . . . O R D E R . 04.01.2012 . . . This appeal by the revenue under Section 260 A (1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 impungs the order dated 17.06.2011 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal for short) in the case of Mascomptel India Ltd. The appeal related to the Assessment year 2006-07. . 2. The requirement to serve a notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was examined in CIT Vs. Lunar Diamonds Ltd. (2006) 281 ITR 1 (Delhi) and it was held that notice under the said section must be served on the assessee within the time stipulated in the proviso. In case the notice was not served within the said time limit the assessment order passed would be null and void. . 3. In the present case the assessing officer had issued a notice under Section 143(2) dated 11.10.2007 to the respondent/assessee. The said notice was addressed at 44-Rajendra Bhawan, Rajendra Place, New Delhi. The notice could not be served and was received back with the remark of the postal authority that ?no such person exists at the address mentioned?. An Inspector was deputed to serve the notice personally but he also reported that the company was not available at the address. The Assessing Officer, thereafter served the notice by affixture. Date of notice of the affixture is however not stated in the assessment order. The assessment was made exparte/best judgment assessment order was passed. . 4. The CIT (Appeals) and the Tribunal have held that the aforesaid service by the affixture was not valid. The findings of the CIT (Appeals) and the Tribunal are that the assessee had mentioned a different address in the return of income tax filed for the assessment year in question. In the return of income tax the address mentioned was 1-GF, AGCR Enclave, Karkardooma, Delhi. They have held that the assessee was earlier functioning from 44-Rajendra Bhawan, Rajendra Place, New Delhi and had shifted from the said address in 2001. It has also come on record that the TDS Officer (who was also the Assessing Officer) had issued notice dated 01.10.2007 at I-GF, AGCR Enclave, Karkardooma, Delhi The said address was also mentioned in the balance sheet, profit and loss account, tax audit report as well as the assessment order under Section 143 (3) dated 30.02.2007 for the assessment year 2005-06 i.e. the immediately preceding assessment year. . 5. Aforesaid facts speaks for themselves. No attempt was made to serve the respondent-assessee at the correct address which was available with the department and in fact stated in the return of the income for the assessment year 2006-07. Subsequent, attempt to serve another notice under Section 143(2) at 1-GF, AGCR Enclave, Karkardooma, Delhi in November, 2008, long after expiry of the limitation period prescribed by the proviso, cannot help the revenue. . 6. The appeal is dismissed. . . . SANJIV KHANNA,J . . . . . R.V.EASWAR, J . JANUARY 04, 2012 . b . . . 10# . $ .