MAHENDRA KUMAR,ALWAR vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), ALWAR, ALWAR

Ld. Counsel for the assessee contended therefore, that it was clear that there was no service of notice to the assessee at all since the assessee was not residing at the address at which notice was served in Village Utawal. He pointed out that, in his submissions made to Ld. CIT(A), the assessee had submitted that, he along with his whole family had left his ancestral village Utawal, Alwar, where the notice was served, 25-30 years back. In this regard, he drew our attention to page 7 of the Ld. CIT(A)s order, wherein, the submissions of the assessee objecting to a valid service of notice u/s 148 of the Act was reproduced.

He thereafter, pointed out that the Ld. CIT(A) had adjudicated this ground raised by the assessee stating that the contention of the assessee is found to be factually incorrect and legally untenable, since the notice was issued at the address available in the PAN database. He drew our attention at para 7.2 of the order of Ld. CIT(A) in this regard. He contended therefore, that the Ld. CIT(A) had adjudicated the issue noting incorrect facts and therefore, his order needed to be set aside.

Ld. DR however, relied on the order of the Ld. CIT(A).

We have heard the rival contentions. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee before us, has fairly demonstrated the fact that the notice u/s 148 of the Act was neither served on the address in his PAN database nor on the address mentioned in his return of income filed for AY 2012-13 and 2013-14 which were filed before the issuance of notice u/s 148 of the Act for the impugned year. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has also pointed out, from his submissions made to the Ld. CIT(A) that he had left the village, where the notice u/s 148 of the Act was served 25 to 30 years back.

In view of the above, it is amply clear that, no notice u/s 148 of the Act was served on the assessee in the present case. The finding of Ld. CIT(A), that the notice was served on the PAN database address, we find is factually incorrect.

There is no dispute that for the assumption of a valid jurisdiction by the AO to frame assessment u/s 147 of the Act, the service of notice u/s 148 of the Act is mandatory. In the facts of the present case since it has been demonstrated that the jurisdictional notice u/s 148 of the Act was not served on the assessee at all, we have no hesitation, in holding that theAO had no valid jurisdiction asper lawto frame assessment u/s 147 of the Act. The order passed as a consequence u/s 147 of the Act, is not legally sustainable and is accordingly quashed.

Since we have quashed the assessment order, the grounds raised on merits in ground No.2, being academic in nature, need no adjudication. 13. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is accordingly allowed in above terms. Order pronounced in the open court on 21.07.2026

Date of dictation of Tribunal Order 09.07.2026 2. Date on which the typed draft Tribunal Order is placed before the 09.07.2026 Dictation Member 3. Date on which the typed draft Tribunal Order is placed before the other Member 4. Date on which the approved draft Tribunal Order comes to the Sr. P.S. /P.S. 5. Date on which the fair Tribunal Order is placed before the Dictating Member for pronouncement ; 6. Date on which the signed order comes back to the Sr. P.S./P.S 7. Date on which the final Tribunal Order is uploaded by the Sr. P.S. /P.S. on official website 8. Date on which the file goes to the Bench Clerk along with Tribunal Order 9. Date of killing off the disposed of files on the judiSIS portal of ITAT by the Bench Clerks 10. Date on which the file goes to the Supervisor (Judicial) 11. Date on which the file goes for Xerox 12. Date on which the file goes for endorsement 13. Date on which the file goes to the superintendent for checking 14 The date on which the file goes to the Assistant Registrar for signature on the tribunal order 15 Date on which the file goes to dispatch section 16 Date of Dispatch of the Order