BENCO FINANCE & INVESTMENT P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 40, MUMBAI

ITA No. 2092/Mum/2017 A.Y. 2006-07 1 Benco Finance & Investment Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT, Central Circle-40, Mumbai

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “B” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI M.BALAGANESH (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI RAVISH SOOD (JUDICIAL MEMBER) ITA No.2092/MUM/2017 (Assessment Year: 2006-07) Benco Finance And Investment Dy. CIT, Central Circle-40 Private Limited; 205, Sujata Vs. (now DCIT, Central Circle -7(2), Mumbai) Room No. 656, 6th Floor, Chambers, 2nd Floor, 1/3 Aaykar Bhawan, M.K Road, Abhichan Gandhi Marg, Off. Mumbai – 400 020. Katha Bazar, Masjid Bunder (W), Mumbai – 400 009 (Assessee) (Revenue) PAN No. AABCB9349R Assessee by : S/shri Vijay Mehta & Purushottam, A.Rs Revenue by : Ms. Shreekala Pardeshi, D.R Date of Hearing : 18/06/2021 Date of pronouncement : 10/08/2021

ORDER PER RAVISH SOOD, J.M:

The present appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the CIT(Appeals)–49, Mumbai, dated 25.01.2017, which in turn arises from the order passed by the A.O under Sec. 143(3) of the Income- tax Act, 1961 (for short ‗Act‘), dated 24.03.2014 for A.Y 2006-07. The assessee has assailed the impugned order on the following grounds before us: “A. PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE: 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) - 49, Mumbai (―the CIT(A)‖] erred in confirming the order of the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle - 40, Mumbai ("the Assessing Officer") after considering the facts that the order was passed without giving a fair and reasonable opportunity of hearing to the Appellant.

ITA No. 2092/Mum/2017 A.Y. 2006-07 2 Benco Finance & Investment Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT, Central Circle-40, Mumbai

The Appellant prays that the order passed under section 143(3) of the Act by the Assessing Officer be held as ab-initio-void and bad in law. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO GROUND NO. 1: B. ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT IS BAD IN LAW: 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer that the assessment order passed under section 143(3) of the Act beyond the time limit prescribed under section 153 of the Act is bad in law. The Appellant prays that it be held that order passed under section 143(3) of the Act is ab-initio and/or otherwise void and bad-in-law. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO GROUND NOS. 1 AND 2: C. REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT IS BAD IM LAW: 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer that reopening of the assessment under section 147 of the Act. The Appellant prays that it be held that reopening of assessment under section 147 of the Act is void ab-initio and/or otherwise bad-in-law. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO GROUND NOS. 1 TO 3: D. ADDITION UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT: 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in adding the premium on equity shares application money amounting to Rs.13,41,97,470/- received from the Investors under section 68 of the Act on the alleged ground that the Appellant has not provided any explanation regarding nature and source of premium received. The Appellant prays that the addition of Rs.13,41,97,470/- under section 68 of the Act ought to be deleted. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO GROUND NOS. 1 TO 4: 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer and not appreciating the facts that the amount received as premium on equity shares application is capital in nature and not taxable under the provisions of the Act. The Appellant prays that the addition of Rs.13,41,97,470/- under section 68 of the Act ought to be deleted. E. INTEREST CHARGED UNDER SECTION 234B OF THE ACT: 6. On the facts arid in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in charging interest under section 234B of the Act amounting to Rs.4,33,64,642/-.

ITA No. 2092/Mum/2017 A.Y. 2006-07 3 Benco Finance & Investment Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT, Central Circle-40, Mumbai

The Appellant prays that the Assessing Officer be directed to delete or appropriately reduce the interest charged under section 234B of the Act. F. GENERAL: The Appellant‘s craves leaves to add to, alter, amend and/or delete all or any of the above grounds of appeal.‖ 2. Briefly stated, the assessee company had e-filed its return of income for A.Y 2006-07 on 24.10.2006, declaring an income of Rs. 25,310/-. Search and seizure action u/s 132 of the Act was conducted by the Investigation Wing of the Income-tax Department in the case of M/s Ruchi Soya Industries Ltd. and the assessee company was covered in the said proceedings. As per the pre- search investigations conducted and information gathered by the department, it transpired that Shri. Jagdish Purohit who had promoted the assessee company was an accommodation entry provider and had effective control over a number of companies that did not conduct any real business but were mainly involved in providing accommodation entries to other business concerns. On further enquiries carried out by the department, it was revealed that the assessee company had as on 31.03.2006 i.e the period relevant to the year under consideration issued 135553 shares at an unjustified premium of Rs. 990/- per share to certain dubious companies of Shri. Jagdish Purohit. Subsequently, the shares of the assessee company were transferred to entities of Ruchi Group. It was further gathered by the department that Shri. Vishesh Shahra and Smt. Ushadevi Shahra had thereafter joined as the directors of the assessee company and hitherto controlled the affairs of the company. As per the records Shri. Jagdish Purohit continued as a director in the assessee company till 25.03.2010. It was noticed by the A.O that the investments of the assessee company in the dubious companies of Shri. Jagdish Purohit were thereafter liquidated by the new management (i.e Ruchi group wherein Shri. Vishesh Shahra and Smt. Ushadevi Shahra were directors) and the same had resulted to accommodation entries to the tune of Rs. 13,41,97,470/-.

ITA No. 2092/Mum/2017 A.Y. 2006-07 4 Benco Finance & Investment Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT, Central Circle-40, Mumbai

issued a notice u/s 148 of the Act, dated 19.03.013. In compliance, it was submitted by the assessee vide its letter dated nil that its return of income filed on 07.11.2006 be treated as the return filed in response to the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act. Accepting the aforesaid request of the assessee, the A.O issued notices u/ss. 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act, dated 118.11.2013. In reply, the assessee vide letter dated 05.12.2013 filed its objections qua the validity of the reopening of its assessment. However, the aforesaid objections filed by the assessee were rejected by the A.O vide his order dated 03.01.2014. Again fresh notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1), dated 07.01.2014 were issued and served on the assessee wherein it was called upon to furnish certain details. In reply, the assessee furnished part information with the A.O. During the course of the reassessment proceedings, it was observed by the A.O that the assessee had claimed to have received share capital and share premium from 16 companies and shares of a face value of Rs. 10/- each were issued to them at a premium of Rs. 990/- per share. It was observed by the A.O that though the assessee by filing the details of the 16 share applicants, viz. names, addresses and PAN etc. had established their respective identities, however, it had failed to discharge the onus that was cast upon it both as regards establishing the genuineness of the transactions and the creditworthiness of the share applicants. Accordingly, the A.O vide his order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147, dated 24.03.2014 treated the share premium of Rs. 13,41,97,470/- as an unexplained cash credit within the meaning of Sec. 68 of the Act and assessed its income at Rs. 13,42,22,780/-. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee assailed the assessment framed by the A.O vide his order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147, dated 24.03.2014. Before the CIT(A), the assessee had on multiple grounds assailed the validity of the jurisdiction that was assumed by the A.O for reopening of its case u/s 147 of the Act. Also, the assessee challenged the merits of the additions that were made by the A.O u/s 68 of the Act. However, the CIT(A) was not inclined to accept the contentions advanced by the assessee and upheld the reopening of its case and framing of the assessment u/s 147 of the Act. Also, addition of

ITA No. 2092/Mum/2017 A.Y. 2006-07 5 Benco Finance & Investment Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT, Central Circle-40, Mumbai

the share premium made by the A.O as an unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act was upheld by the CIT(A). 5. The assessee being aggrieved with the order of the CIT(A) has carried the matter in appeal before us. The ld. Authorised Representative (for short ―A.R‖) for the assessee at the very outset assailed the validity of the assessment framed by the A.O u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147, dated 24.03.2014, for the reason, that the same was passed without carrying out a valid service of a notice u/s 148 of the Act within the prescribed time limit. Elaborating on his aforesaid claim, it was submitted by the ld. A.R, that though the impugned notice u/s 148 of the Act, dated 19.03.2013 was dispatched vide speed post on 20.03.2013, however, the same was returned back by the postal authorities on 22.03.2013. Taking us through the observations of the CIT(A) at Page 19 of his order, it was submitted by the ld. A.R that the notice u/s 148, dated 19.03.2013, was dispatched to a wrong address i.e ―A-12, New Chandradoy, Banusali Lane, Ghatkopar (E), Mumbai – 400 077‖. It was submitted by the ld. A.R that though the aforesaid address was the old address of the assessee company and was so mentioned in its return of income for the year under consideration i.e A.Y 2006-07, however, the registered office address of the assessee company was thereafter shifted to, viz. ―205, Sujata Chambers, 2nd Floor, 1/3, Abhichand Gandhi Marg, Off. Katha Bazar Masjid (W), Mumbai – 400 009‖. It was submitted by the ld. A.R that the fact qua the change of the registered office address of the assessee company was well within the knowledge of the department on the date on which the impugned notice u/s 148, dated 19.03.2013 was issued to it. In order to fortify his aforesaid claim, it was submitted by the ld. A.R that in its returns of income for the succeeding years the new registered address of the assessee was mentioned, viz. (i). return of income for A.Y 2009-10 filed on 23.03.2010; (i). return of income for A.Y 2010-11 filed on 14.10.2010; (iii). return of income for A.Y 2011-12 filed on 22.09.2011; and (iv). return of income for A.Y 2012-13 filed on 22.09.2012. It was further submitted by the ld. A.R that the fact that new registered office address of the assessee company was well within the knowledge of the

ITA No. 2092/Mum/2017 A.Y. 2006-07 6 Benco Finance & Investment Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT, Central Circle-40, Mumbai

department could also safely be gathered from the intimations u/s 143(1) of the Act that were issued to the assessee company for the succeeding years wherein the same made a mention of the said new registered office address, viz. (i). Intimation u/s 143(1) for A.Y 2010-11, dated 12.02.2011; and (ii). Intimation u/s 143(1) for A.Y 2012-13, dated 18.05.2013. Apart from that, it was submitted by the ld. A.R that the case of the assessee company was selected for scrutiny assessment for A.Y 2009-10 and A.Y 2010-11, and in the respective assessment orders passed by the A.O u/s 143(3), dated 19.12.2011 and 30.01.2013 the new registered office address of the assessee company was mentioned. Also, our attention was drawn by the ld. A.R to the application dated 03.11.2015 that was filed by the assessee company for change of its address in the PAN data base. In the backdrop of the aforesaid facts, it was submitted by the ld. A.R that as the impugned notice u/s 148, dated 19.03.2013 was issued by the A.O at a wrong address, which thereafter was received back, therefore, the said notice could not be held to have been validly issued by the A.O. It was further submitted by the ld. A.R that a photocopy of the notice u/s 148 was on 25.06.2013 handed over for the very first time to the assessee‘s Chartered accountant, viz. Shri. Rajendra Laddha. It was submitted by the ld. A.R that as the notice u/s 148 was handed over to its authorised representative on 25.06.2013 i.e beyond the prescribed period of 6 years from the end of the relevant assessment year, therefore, the same was barred by limitation. In support of his aforesaid contentions the ld. A.R had pressed into service Sec. 282(1) of the Act r.w Rule 127 of the Income-tax rules, 1962 which prescribes the mode and manner of service of a notice under the Act. The ld. A.R had further relied on the judgment of the Hon‘ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Harjeet Suraprakash Girotra Vs. UOI (2019) 108 taxmann.com 491 (Bom). It was submitted by the ld. A.R that the Hon‘ble High Court in its aforesaid judgment had inter alia held that not a mere issuance of notice of reopening of assessment but its service on the assessee, that too, within the time frame envisaged under Sec. 149 is necessary for a valid reopening of an assessment. It was further submitted by

ITA No. 2092/Mum/2017 A.Y. 2006-07 7 Benco Finance & Investment Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT, Central Circle-40, Mumbai

the ld. A.R that in the aforesaid case as the reopening notice that was sent to the assessee at the address available in his PAN database was returned by the postal authorities, therefore, the Hon‘ble High Court had observed that by virtue of the proviso to sub-rule (2) of Rule 127 of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 the communication had to be delivered at the address of the assessee that was available with the banking company. However, as the A.O had failed to do so, therefore, the Hon‘ble High Court had struck down the reassessment order passed by him, for the reason, that there was no service of the reopening notice. Also, the ld. A.R had relied on the judgment of the Hon‘ble High Court of Chattisgarh in the case of Ardent Steel Ltd. vs. ACIT (Central)- 2, Raipur (2018) 94 taxmann. Com 95 (Chattisgarh). Further, the ld. A.R by drawing support from the judgment of the Hon‘ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Kanubhai M. Patel (HUF) Vs. Hiren Bhatt or His Successors to Office (2011) 334 ITR 25 (Guj) submitted, that the Hon‘ble High Court had observed that the date of issue of notice u/s 148 would be the date on which the same was handed over for service to the proper officer, which in the facts of the case would be the date on which the said notices were actually handed over to the post office for the purpose of effecting service on the assessee. It was submitted by the ld. A.R that till the point of time the envelopes were properly stamped with adequate value of postal stamps it could not be said that the process of issuance of notice was complete. Apropos its claim that a notice u/s 148 despatched by the department at a wrong address would be an invalid notice, the ld. A.R had relied on the judgments of the Hon‘ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT Vs. Eghan Holdings (P) Ltd. (2010) 2 DTL online 297 (Del) and CIT Vs. Eshaamn Holdings (P) Ltd. (2012) 25 taxmann.com 99 (Del). Accordingly, the ld. A.R in the backdrop of his aforesaid contentions had came forth with four submissions, viz. (i). that not a mere issuance of a notice of reopening of assessment but its service on the assessee, that too, within the time frame envisaged under Sec. 149 is necessary for a valid reopening of assessment; (ii). that as the notice u/s 148, dated 19.03.2013 was issued by the A.O at a wrong address, therefore, the same was invalid and had no

ITA No. 2092/Mum/2017 A.Y. 2006-07 8 Benco Finance & Investment Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT, Central Circle-40, Mumbai

existence in the eyes of law; (ii). that the A.O had failed to effect service of notice u/s 148, dated 19.03.2013 as per the mandate of Sec. 282(1) r.w. Rule 127 of the Income-tax Rules, 1962; and (iv). that as the copy of notice u/s 148, dated 19.03.2013 handed over for the very first time on 25.06.2013 to its authorised representative, viz. Shri. Rajendra Laddha was beyond the prescribed period of 6 years from the end of the assessment year which expired on 31.03.2013, therefore, the same being barred by limitation was non-est. On the basis of his aforesaid contentions, it was submitted by the ld. A.R that the assessment framed by the A.O vide his order passed under Sec. 143(3) r.w.s 147, dated 24.03.2014 de hors a valid service of notice u/s 148 of the Act could not be sustained and was liable to be quashed. 6. Per Contra, the ld. Departmental Representative (for short ―D.R‖) relied on the orders of the lower authorities. 7. We have heard the ld. authorized representatives for both the parties, perused the orders of the lower authorities and the material available on record, as well as considered the judicial pronouncements that have been pressed into service by the ld. A.R to drive home his aforesaid contentions. As the ld. A.R has assailed the validity of the reassessment order on the ground that the same has been passed without service of a notice under Sec. 148 of the Act, therefore, we shall first deal with the said aspect as the same goes to the very root of the jurisdiction assumed by the A.O for framing the assessment. As observed by us hereinabove, it is the claim of the ld. A.R that as the notice under Sec. 148 of the Act, dated 19.03.2013 was dispatched by the A.O vide speed post on 20.03.2013 at a wrong address, therefore, the same was returned back by the postal authorities on 22.03.2013. It is the claim of the ld. A.R that though the department was well aware of the fact that the assessee had changed its registered office address to viz. ―205, Sujata Chambers, 2nd Floor, 1/3, Abhichand Gandhi Marg, Off. Katha Bazar Masjid (W), Mumbai – 400 009‖, however, despite being in knowledge of the aforesaid fact it had most callously dispatched the notice u/s 148, dated

ITA No. 2092/Mum/2017 A.Y. 2006-07 9 Benco Finance & Investment Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT, Central Circle-40, Mumbai

19.03.2013 through speed post to its old registered address, viz. ―A-12, New Chandradoy, Banusali Lane, Ghatkopar (E), Mumbai – 400 077‖, which was returned by the postal authorities on 22.03.2013. Before us, the ld. A.R in order to drive home his claim that the department was well aware about the change of the registered office address of the asseseee company had drawn support from the fact that the returns of income; intimations issued u/s 143(1) and also the assessment orders passed u/s 143(3) of the Act; for the succeeding years, all of which were anterior to the issuance of the impugned notice u/s 148 of the Act, dated 19.03.2013, clearly mentioned the new registered office address of the assessee. As such, the short proposition that has been canvassed by the ld. A.R before us has two parts, viz. (i). that as the notice u/s 148, dated 19.03.2013 dispatched at a wrong address was invalid and non est, therefore, no valid service of notice could be gathered therefrom; and (ii). that a mere issuance of a notice for reopening of an assessment but its service on the assessee and that too within the time frame envisaged under Sec. 149 is necessary for a valid reopening of an assessment.

ITA No. 2092/Mum/2017 A.Y. 2006-07 10 Benco Finance & Investment Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT, Central Circle-40, Mumbai

―148 (1)] Before making the assessment, reassessment or recomputation under section 147, the Assessing Officer shall serve on the assessee a notice requiring him to furnish within such period, [***], as may be specified in the notice, a return of his income or the income of any other person in respect of which he is assessable under this Act during the previous year corresponding to the relevant assessment year, in the prescribed form and verified in the prescribed manner and setting forth such other particulars as may be prescribed; and the provisions of this Act shall, so far as may be, apply accordingly as if such return were a return required to be furnished under section 139.‖ (emphasis supplied by us) Further, the time limit within which a notice u/s 148 shall be issued by the A.O is prescribed in Sec. 149 of the Act. For the sake of clarity Sec. 149 (relevant extract) is culled out as under : ―149(1) No notice under section 148 shall be issued for the relevant assessment year,— [(a) if four years have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year, unless the case falls under clause (b) [or clause (c)]; (b) if four years, but not more than six years, have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year unless the income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment amounts to or is likely to amount to one lakh rupees or more for that year;] [(c) if four years, but not more than sixteen years, have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year unless the income in relation to any asset (including financial interest in any entity) located outside India, chargeable to tax, has escaped assessment.] Explanation.—In determining income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment for the purposes of this sub-section, the provisions of Explanation 2 of section 147 shall apply as they apply for the purposes of that section.]‖ Insofar the mode and manner of service of a notice issued under Sec. 148 of the Act is concerned, the same can be traced in Sec. 282 of the Act and Rule 127 of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, which reads as under : ―282 (1) The service of a notice or summon or requisition or order or any other communication under this Act (hereafter in this section referred to as communication‖) may be made by delivering or transmitting a copy thereof, to the person therein named: (a) by post or by such courier services as may be approved by the Board; or (b) in such manner as provided under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) for the purposes of service of summons; or (c) in the form of any electronic record as provided in Chapter IV of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (21 of 2000); or (d) by any other means of transmission of documents as provided by rules made by the Board in this behalf.

ITA No. 2092/Mum/2017 A.Y. 2006-07 11 Benco Finance & Investment Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT, Central Circle-40, Mumbai

(2) The Board may make rules providing for the addresses (including the address for electronic mail or electronic mail message) to which the communication referred to in sub-section (1) may be delivered or transmitted to the person therein named. Explanation - For the purposes of this section, the expressions ―electronic mail’ and ―electronic mail message‖ shall have the meanings as assigned to them in Explanation to section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (21 of 2000).‖ Further, Rule 127 of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 contemplates the address (including the address for electronic mail or electronic mail message) to which a notice or summons or requisition or order or any further communication under the Act may be delivered for the purpose of sub-section (1) of Sec. 282, which reads as under:

―Service of notice, summons, requisition, order and other communication.‖ 127, (1) For the purposes of sub-section (1) of section 282, the addresses (including the address for electronic mail or electronic mail message) to which a notice or summons or requisition or order or any other communication under the Act (hereafter in this rule referred to as ―communication‖) may be delivered or transmitted shall be as per sub-rule (2). (2) The addresses referred to in sub-rule (1) shall be (a) for communications delivered or transmitted in the manner provided in clause (a) or clause (5) of sub-section (1) of section 282— (i) the address available in the PAN database of the addressee; or (ii) the address available in the income-tax return to which the communication relates; or (iii) the address available in the last income-tax return furnished by the addressee; or (iv) in the case of addressee being a company, address of registered office as available on the website of Ministry of Corporate Affairs: Provided that the communication shall not be delivered or transmitted to the address mentioned in items (i) to (iv) where the addressee furnishes in writing any other address for the purposes of communication to the income-tax authority or any person authorised by such authority issuing the communication: [Provided further that where the communication cannot be delivered or transmitted to the address mentioned in items (i) to (iv) or any other address furnished by the addressee as referred to in first proviso, the communication shall be delivered or transmitted to the following address: (i) the address of the assessee as available with a banking company or a co-operative bank to which the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 (10 of 1949) applies (including any bank or banking institution referred to in section 51 of the said Act); or (ii) the address of the assessee as available with the Post Master General as referred to in clause (j) of section 2 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898 (6 of 1898); or (iii) the address of the assessee as available with the insurer as defined in clause (9) of section 2 of the Insurance Act, 1938 (4 of 1938); or

ITA No. 2092/Mum/2017 A.Y. 2006-07 12 Benco Finance & Investment Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT, Central Circle-40, Mumbai

(iv) the address of the assessee as furnished in Form No. 61 to the Director of Income-tax (Intelligence and Criminal Investigation) or to the Joint Director of Income-tax (intelligence and Criminal Investigation) under sub-rule (1) of rule 114D; or (v) the address of the assessee as furnished in Form No. 61A under sub-rule(1) of rule 114E to the Director of Income-tax (Intelligence and Criminal Investigation) or to the Joint Director of Income-tax (Intelligence and Criminal Investigation); or (vi) the address of the assessee as available in the records of the Government; or (vii) the address of the assessee as available in the records of a local authority as referred to in the Explanation below clause (20) of section 10 of the Act;] , (b) for communications delivered or transmitted electronically:- (i) email address available in the income-tax return furnished by the addressee to which the communication relates; or (ii) the email address available in the last income-tax return furnished by the addressee; or (iii) in the case of addressee being a company, email address of the company as available on the website of Ministry of Corporate Affairs: or (iv) any email address made available by the addressee to the income tax authority or any person authorised by such income-tax authority. (3) The Principal Director General of Income-tax (Systems) or the Director, Gene of Income-tax (Systems) shall specify the procedure, formats and Standard, for ensuring secure transmission of electronic communication and shall also responsible for formulating and implementing appropriate security, and retrieval policies in relation to such communication.]‖ 9. It is in the backdrop of the aforesaid position of law that we shall hereinafter deal with the claim of the ld. A.R that as no notice under Sec. 148 was served on it within the time limit prescribed in Sec. 149 of the Act, therefore, the reassessment order passed by the A.O under Sec. 143(3) r.w.s 147, dated 24.03.2014 being invalid could not be sustained and was liable to be vacated.

ITA No. 2092/Mum/2017 A.Y. 2006-07 13 Benco Finance & Investment Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT, Central Circle-40, Mumbai

from the records, in the returns of income filed by the assessee for the succeeding years the new registered address of the assessee was mentioned, viz. (i). return of income for A.Y 2009-10 filed on 23.03.2010; (i). return of income for A.Y 2010-11 filed on 14.10.2010; (iii). return of income for A.Y 2011-12 filed on 22.09.2011; and (iv). return of income for A.Y 2012-13 filed on 22.09.2012. Also, we concur with the claim of the ld. A.R that the fact that the new registered office address of the assessee company was well within the knowledge of the department can safely or infact inescapably be gathered from the intimations u/s 143(1) for the succeeding years that were issued by the department mentioning the said new registered address, viz. (i). Intimation u/s 143(1) for A.Y 2010-11, dated 12.02.2011; and (ii). Intimation u/s 143(1) for A.Y 2012-13, dated 18.05.2013. Apart from that, the fact that the A.O had in the respective assessment orders passed by him u/s 143(3), dated 19.12.2011 and 30.01.2013 for A.Y 2009-10 and A.Y 2010-11 mentioned the new registered address of the assessee company, therein, dispels all doubts and in fact proves to the hilt that the department at the time of dispatching the impugned notice u/s 148, dated 19.03.2013 at the old registered office address of the assessee company was well conversant about the new registered office address to which the assessee company had shifted. At the same time, we are not persuaded to accept the claim of the ld. A.R that all needful qua the change in the registered office address that was required to be done on the part of the assesee was done by the assessee. Although, it is the claim of the assesee that it had filed an application for change of its registered office address in its PAN data base, however, a perusal of the acknowledgement therein issued reveals that the said application was filed on 03.11.2015 i.e. much subsequent to the issuance of the notice u/s 148 of the Act, dated 19.03.2013. Accordingly, it can safely be concluded, that though the assessee had not done the needful for getting its registered office address changed in the PAN database, but then, it remains as a matter of fact borne from the record that the department was well aware and conversant of the fact that the assessee company had shifted its registered office from, viz. ―A-12,

ITA No. 2092/Mum/2017 A.Y. 2006-07 14 Benco Finance & Investment Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT, Central Circle-40, Mumbai

New Chandradoy, Bhanushali Lane, Ghatkopar (E), Mumbai – 400 077‖ to ―205 Sujata Chambers, 2nd Floor, 1/3, Abhicand Gandhi Marg, Off Katha Bazar Masjid (W), Mumbai – 400 009‖. Our aforesaid conviction is fortified from the fact that not only the assessee had during the period anterior to issuance of the notice u/s 148, dated 19.03.2013 filed its returns of income for the succeeding years mentioning its new registered office address, but even the intimations issued by the department u/s 143(1) and the assessment orders passed u/s 143(3) for the said succeeding years clearly mentioned the new registered office address of the assessee company. Be that as it may, it is an irrefutable fact borne from the record that the A.O at the time of issuing the notice u/s 148, dated 19.03.2013 was well aware of the fact that the assessee company had shifted its registered office to a new address. As both in the PAN data base and in the return of income of the assessee company for the year under consideration i.e A.Y 2006-07 the old registered office address was mentioned, therefore, there could be some justification on the part of the A.O to have despatched the notice u/s 148 at the said address. But then, in our considered view, now when the aforementioned notice u/s 148, dated 19.03.2013 was returned on 22.03.2013 by the postal authorities, for the reason, that same could not be delivered as the address was wrongly mentioned, then, the department ought to have looked into its records which would have revealed the new registered office address of the assessee company. However, we find that the A.O adopted a lackadaisical approach and dispensing with the statutory obligation cast upon him to put up diligent efforts to locate the whereabouts of the assessee had most casually proceeded with the reassessment proceedings. As noticed by us hereinabove, the copy of the notice u/s 148, dated 19.03.2013 was handed over for the very first time to the authorized representative of the assessee, viz. Shri Rajendra Laddha on 25.06.2013. It is in the backdrop of the aforesaid facts, that we shall adjudicate upon the validity of the jurisdiction assumed by the A.O for framing the reassessment vide his order passed u/s 143 r.w.s 147, dated 24.03.2014.

ITA No. 2092/Mum/2017 A.Y. 2006-07 15 Benco Finance & Investment Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT, Central Circle-40, Mumbai

ITA No. 2092/Mum/2017 A.Y. 2006-07 16 Benco Finance & Investment Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT, Central Circle-40, Mumbai

reason, that the address was therein wrongly mentioned. Although, it is a matter of fact borne from the record that during the period anterior to the issuance of the notice u/s 148, dated 19.03.2013; not only the assessee company in its returns of income for the succeeding years had mentioned its new registered office address, but in fact the department itself had issued intimations u/s 143(1) of the Act and framed assessments u/s 143(3) of the Act for the succeeding years mentioning the said new registered address of the assessee company. As observed by us hereinabove, there can be no denial from the fact that the department was totally aware about the fact that the assessee company had shifted to its new registered office address, viz. ―205 Sujata Chambers, 2nd Floor, 1/3, Abhicand Gandhi Marg, Off Katha Bazar Masjid (W), Mumbai – 400 009‖. Although, we are in agreement with the ld. D.R that as the assessee had not made any request for change of its registered office address in the PAN database, therefore, there was some justification on the part of the A.O to have dispatched the notice u/s 148, dated 19.03.2013 at the said old registered office address. But what we are unable to comprehend and in fact disturbs us is that now when the aforesaid notice u/s 148, dated 19.03.2013 was returned by the postal authorities on 22.03.2013, for the reason, that the address therein mentioned was found to be wrong, then, what stopped the department from doing the bare minimum and look into its records which would had beyond doubt revealed the new registered office address of the assessee company. Accordingly, in the backdrop of the aforesaid facts, we are absolutely not at all able to accept the inaction on the part of the A.O in not even attempting to track the address of the assessee company from his own records. As observed by us at length hereinabove, Rule 127(2)(a) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, inter alia, contemplates “the address available in the last income-tax return furnished by the addressee” as one of the addresses to which a notice or summon or requisition or order or any other communication under the Act may be delivered or transmitted to an assessee. We, thus, are of a strong conviction that if the notice that was dispatched by the A.O to the address available in

ITA No. 2092/Mum/2017 A.Y. 2006-07 17 Benco Finance & Investment Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT, Central Circle-40, Mumbai

the income-tax return to which the communication related i.e A.Y 2006-07 was returned back by the postal authorities on 22.03.2013, for the reason, that a wrong address was therein mentioned, then, the A.O ought to have dispatched the said notice u/s 148, dated 19.03.2013 at the address available in the last income-tax return furnished by the assessee company. 13. Be that as it may, it is a matter of fact borne from the record that the notice u/s 148, dated 19.03.2013 was served for the very first time by the A.O on the assessee‘s authorised representative, viz. Shri Rajendra Laddha on 25.06.2013. Now, this takes us to an important aspect i.e whether or not the notice issued u/s 148 on 19.03.2013 though served on the assessee on 25.06.2013 validly vested jurisdiction with the A.O to frame the reassessment vide his order passed u/s 143(3) r.ws. 147, dated 24.03.2014. Before us, it is the claim of the ld. D.R that as the reassessment notice was issued by the A.O within the time limit contemplated in Sec.149 of the Act, and the same had been served on the assessee on 25.06.2013 i.e before making the reassessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147, dated 24.03.2014, therefore, no infirmity qua assumption of jurisdiction by the A.O did arise therefrom. Rebutting the aforesaid averrment of the ld. D.R, it is the claim of the ld. A.R that a notice of reassessment is issued to the assessee when it is served on him. In other words, as per the ld. A.R a notice of reassessment issued against the assessee before limitation but served on the assessee after limitation would be without jurisdiction, void and ineffective. Our indulgence has been sought by the assessee for adjudicating, that as to whether or not for valid assumption of jurisdiction to frame a reassessment the A.O is obligated to not only issue a notice of reassessment against the assessee within the prescribed period of limitation, but also validly serve the same on the assessee within the said prescribed time period. We find, that the said issue is squarely covered by the judgment of the Hon‘ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Harjeet Surajprakash Girotra Vs. Union of India (2019) 108 taxman.com 491 (Bom). For a fair appreciation of the issue under consideration, we think it apt to briefly cull out the facts as were involved in the

ITA No. 2092/Mum/2017 A.Y. 2006-07 18 Benco Finance & Investment Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT, Central Circle-40, Mumbai

case before the Hon‘ble High Court. In the case before the Hon‘ble High Court, the assessee a widowed lady was allotted Permanent Account Number (for short ―PAN‖) by the Income tax Department. However, being a housewife she had never filed her return of income since she did not have any taxable income. After the death of her husband, she had shifted from Mumbai to Jabalpur and resided there with her sister. Observing, that the assessee during the year under consideration had entered into various high value transactions such as cash deposits in bank account, purchase of mutual funds, sale and purchase immovable property etc., the A.O reopened her case and issued a notice u/s 148, dated 15.03.2013 and despatched the same for delivery through post at the address that was mentioned in her PAN database. However, the aforesaid notice issued u/s 148,dated 15.03.2018 was returned by the postal authorities on 23.03.2018 with a remark ―left‖. As the assessee had not changed the address in her PAN database, therefore, the department without making any further attempt to serve the said notice on the assesee proceeded with the reassessment proceedings. Order of reassessment was thereafter passed by the A.O on 28.12.2018. It was only when the department had initiated certain recovery proceedings that the assessee learnt about the aforesaid reassessment order passed in her case. On a writ petition filed by the assessee, it was observed by the Hon‘ble High Court that Sec. 282(1) of the Act r.w Rule 127 of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 provided the addresses to which a notice or summons or requisition or order or any other communication under the act may be delivered or transmitted. Referring to the four sources of addresses which were provided for delivery of a notice, it was observed by the Hon‘ble High court that now when the notice could not be delivered at the address of the assessee that was available in her PAN database, then, the same could have been communicated and therein delivered at her address that was available with the banking company. It was observed by the Hon‘ble High Court that the ‗2nd proviso‘ to sub-rule (2) to Rule 127 further provided that where the communication cannot be delivered or transmitted to the addresses mentioned in item number (i) to (iv) or at the address furnished by

ITA No. 2092/Mum/2017 A.Y. 2006-07 19 Benco Finance & Investment Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT, Central Circle-40, Mumbai

the assessee as per the ‗1st proviso‘, then, the same shall be delivered or transmitted to the addresses given below the said ‗2nd proviso‘ i.e the address of the assessee as available with the banking company or a cooperative bank to which the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 applies. Backed by its aforesaid observations, the Hon‘ble High Court was of the view that as the department had access to the assessee‘s bank account, therefore, as per Rule 127(2) the A.O was obligated to have delivered the notice of reassessment at the address that was given by the assessee to the bank where her account was maintained. Observing, that the department had failed to serve the notice of reassessment before the last date envisaged u/s 149 of the Act, the Hon‘ble High Court held the reopening of the assessment as invalid.

ITA No. 2092/Mum/2017 A.Y. 2006-07 20 Benco Finance & Investment Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT, Central Circle-40, Mumbai

available in the last income tax return furnished by the assessee”. However, we find that the A.O after receiving back the notice u/s 148, dated 19.03.2013 from the postal authorities on 22.03.2013 acted in a callous manner and did not attempt to effect service of the said notice on the assessee. As observed by us hereinabove, in case the A.O would have been slightly vigilant and would have merely looked into the records of the assessee company that were lying available with the department, then, he would have gathered the new registered office address of the assessee company. Insofar the claim of the revenue that as the notice u/s 148, dated 19.03.2013 was issued by the A.O within the stipulated time limit and thereafter had been served on the assessee on 25.06.2013 i.e prior to passing of the reassessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147, dated 24.03.2014, therefore, no infirmity qua the assumption of jurisdiction by the A.O for passing the reassessment order arises therefrom, we are afraid cannot be accepted. As observed by us hereinabove, the Hon‘ble High court of Bombay in the case of Harjeet Surajprakash Girotra Vs. Union of India (2019) 108 taxman.com 491(Bom) after relying on a host of judicial pronouncements, had concluded, that in the absence of service of notice before the last date envisaged u/s 149 of the Act, the reopening of the assessment would be invalid in the eyes of law. The Hon‘ble High Court while concluding as hereinabove had after drawing support from the various judicial pronouncements observed as under :

―7. As is well known, section 147 of the Act pertains to income escaping assessment. In terms of subsection (1) of section 147, if the Assessing Officer has reason to believe that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment, he may, subject to the provisions of sections 148 to 153, assess or reassess such income and any other income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment. Section 148 of the Act pertains to the issue of notice where income has escaped assessment. Sub-section (1) of section 148 provides that before making assessment or recomputation under section 147, the Assessing Officer shall serve on the assessee a notice requiring him to furnish the return of income in prescribed form. Section 149 of the Act pertains to time limit for such notice to be issued under section 148 of the Act. 8. In terms of section 148(1) of the Act, thus, before making reassessment under section 147, the Assessing Officer had to serve on the assessee the notice requiring him to furnish a return. Service of notice is necessary and not

ITA No. 2092/Mum/2017 A.Y. 2006-07 21 Benco Finance & Investment Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT, Central Circle-40, Mumbai

its mere issuance. In terms of provisions contained in section 149 of the Act, such notice could have been issued latest by 31.3.2018. As we have noted, the Department did issue such a notice on 15.3.2018 and despatched it through post for its service to the petitioner at the address given by her in the PAN card. This postal despatch, however, was returned by the postal department with a remark "left". The Assessing Officer proceeded on the basis of such notice and its return and completed the assessment after issuing notices under section 143(2) of the Act. The question is could he have done so? 9. It is consistent view of the Courts that not mere issuance of notice of reopening of assessment but its service on the assessee, that too, within the time frame envisaged under section 149 of the Act is necessary for a valid reopening of assessment. In case of Y. Narayan Chetty & Anr. vs. Income Tax officer, Nellore & Ors. reported in (1959) 35 ITR 388, the Supreme Court in the context of Income Tax Act, 1922 had observed as under: 5. The first point raised by Mr. Sastri is that the proceedings taken by respondent 1 under s.34 of the Act are invalid because the notice required to be issued under the said section has not been issued against the assessees contemplated therein. In the present case the Income Tax Officer has purported to act under s.34(1)(a) against the three firms. The said sub-section provides inter alia that "if the Income Tax Officer has reason to believe that by reason of the omission or failure on the part of the assessee to make a return of his income under Section 22 for any year or to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment for that year, income, profits or gains chargeable to income-tax has been underassessed", he may, within the time prescribed, "serve on the assessee a notice containing all or any of the requirements which may be included in the notice under sub-section (2) of Section 22 and may proceed to reassess such income, profits or gains". The argument is that the service of the requisite notice on the assessee is a condition precedent to the validity of any reassessment made under Section 34; and if a valid notice is not issued as required, proceedings taken by the Income Tax Officer in pursuance of an invalid notice and consequent orders of reassessment passed by him would be void and inoperative. In our opinion, this contention is well-founded. The notice prescribed by Section 34 cannot be regarded as a more procedural requirement; it is only if the said notice is served on the assessee as required that the Income Tax Officer would be justified in taking proceedings against him. If no notice is issued or if the notice issued is shown to be invalid then the validity of the proceedings taken by the Income Tax Officer without a notice or in pursuance of an invalid notice would be illegal and void. That is the view taken by the Bombay and Calcutta High Courts in the CT v. Ramsukh Motilal and R.K. Das & Co. v. CT and we think that that view is right." 10. In the case of Shanabhai B. Patel vs. R.K. Upadhyaya, Income Tax Officer, Ahmedabad reported in (1974) 96 ITR 141, the Division Bench of

ITA No. 2092/Mum/2017 A.Y. 2006-07 22 Benco Finance & Investment Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT, Central Circle-40, Mumbai

Gujarat High Court had examined similar issue and opined as under: 9. In our opinion, therefore, the assumption of jurisdiction by the Income-tax Officer of reassessing an assessee is subject to the provisions contained in section 148 to 153 of the Act. Section 148 and 149, which we have reproduced above, clearly show that such jurisdiction cannot be assumed without issuance of notice within the prescribed period and service thereof on the assessee concerned. Mr. Kaji, however, attempted to persuade us that the very fact that the legislature has divided these different provisions contained in the old section 34 of the 1922 Act by suitably enacting sections 147, 148 and 149, where the Income-tax Officer has been given power to reassess after service of notice on the assessee issued within the prescribed period, clearly indicates that the legislature intended to depart from the positions as it emerged from the provisions contained in section 34 of the old Act of 1922. We do not think that this submissions of Mr. Kaji is justified. The scheme for the power of reassessment has been now suitably divided in section 147 onwards of the 1961 Act. This scheme of power was originally comprehended within the provisions contained in section 34 of the 1922 Act. This division of the provisions contained in the old section 34 into section 147 onwards, do not in any way materially alter the positions which could justify the court in accepting the interpretation canvassed by Mr. Kaji that the different stages have been prescribed before the assumption of jurisdiction. These stages, according to Mr. Kaji, are the issuance of notice within the prescribed period and service of the notice on the assessee. On the plain reading of sections 147,148 and 149, we do not think that this contention of Mr. Kaji can be sustained. Though the marginal notes of the sections are not decisive, they give us an idea about the intention of the legislature, that it did not contemplate two stages as contended by Mr. Kaji. Section 148 provides for the service of notice before the jurisdiction for reassessment can be assumed. The marginal note of this section reads, "Issue of notice where income has escaped assessment". Section 149 provides for issuance of notice before the expiry of the prescribed period and the marginal note of this section reads: "Time limit for notice". In our opinion, therefore, these words, "service of notice" or "issuance of notice", have no fixed connotation but are interchangeable, as held by the Supreme Court in Banarsi Debi's case. The Division Bench of this court in Induprasad Devshanker Bhatt v. J. P. Jani, Income-tax Officer, Circle IV, Ward-O, Ahmedabad, was dealing with a similar contention that the words "issue" and "service" as used in section 34 cannot be equated with each other and that the stage of issue of notice is a distinct and different stage from the stage of service of notice. Mr. Justice Bhagwati (as he then was) observed as under: "Now, it is undoubtedly true that, according to the decision of Desai C.J., as he then was, and Miabhoy J. in Madanlal Mathurdas v. Chunilal, Income-tax Officer, the words 'issue' and 'serve' as used in section 34 cannot be equated with each other

ITA No. 2092/Mum/2017 A.Y. 2006-07 23 Benco Finance & Investment Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT, Central Circle-40, Mumbai

and that the stage of issue of notice is a distinct and different stage from the stage of service of notice and ordinarily this decision being a decision of a Division Bench of this court would be binding upon us, but having regard to the subsequent decision of the Supreme Court in Banarasi Debi v. Income- tax Officer, this decision can no longer be regarded as good law and its authority must be held to have been impliedly overruled, though we may point out that even if the view taken by the Bombay High Court in this decision were correct, we should still have found considerable difficulty in accepting the contention that the proceedings under section 34 commence on the issue of the notice. The Supreme Court in the decision to which we have just referred pointed out that the words 'issued' and 'served' are used as interchangeable terms in the context of notice issued under section 34 and that where the legislature has used the word 'issued' in the context of such notices, that word is used in the same sense as the word 'served'. This decision of the Supreme Court made it clear that, so far as notices under section 34 are concerned, there are no two distinct and separate stages such as the stage of issue of notice and the stage of service of notice; the notice is issued to the assessee when it is served upon him. If that be the position, the entire foundation on which the superstructure of the argument urged on behalf of the petitioner is based must disappear. There being only one stage, whether it be described as issue of notice or as service of notice, proceedings under section 34 would commence when the step envisaged in that stage is taken and that would be when the notice is served on the assessee." 11. The decision of the Gujarat High Court was noticed by the Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Major Tikka Khushwant Singh vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Patiala & Anr. reported in (1975) 101 ITR 106. The Court observed as under: "Thus, it will be assumed that while enacting the 1961 Act, the legislature knew that the words "serve" and "issue" were being used interchangeably according to the judicial interpretation. In spite of the knowledge it preferred to use the words in the aforesaid Act. Mr. Awasthy, the learned counsel for the revenue, has argued that in the 1961 Act, the two words have been used in two different sections. According to him before making the assessment, reassessment or recomputation under section 147, it is the duty of the Income-tax Officer to serve a notice on the assessee as required by section 148, whereas he can assume jurisdiction after issuance of the notice within the prescribed period under section 149 even though the same may not be served upon the assessee. He also submits that by dividing the provisions of section 34 of the 1922 Act in the 1961 Act, the intention of the legislature has become clear. We express our inability to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the Revenue. A reading of sections 148 and 149 clearly shows that the Income-tax Officer cannot

ITA No. 2092/Mum/2017 A.Y. 2006-07 24 Benco Finance & Investment Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT, Central Circle-40, Mumbai

assume jurisdiction to make assessment, reassessment of recomputation unless the notice has been issued and served within the time limit prescribed under the aforesaid sections. The same question came up before a Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court in Shanabhai P. Patel v. R.P. Upadhyaya, income-tax Officer, B. K. Mehta J., while speaking for the court, observed as follows: "Sections 147, 148 and 149 of the Income-tax Act of 1961 confer the power of reassessment on the Income-tax Officer. This scheme of power was originally comprehended in the provisions of section 34 of the Act of 1922. The division of the provisions contained in section 34 of the 1922 Act into sections 147, 148 and 149 in the Act of 1961 does not in any way indicate that the legislature intended to depart from or materially alter the position as it emerged from the provisions of section 34 of the old Act regarding notice of reassessment. The Supreme Court held in Banarsi Debi vs. Income-tax Officer (1), that the words, 'service of notice' or 'issuance of notice' in section 34 have no fixed connotation but are interchangeable. The same meaning should be given to the words 'issue of notice' in section 148 and 'service of notice' in section 149. "Under the Act of 1961 also there are no two distinct and separate stages of issue of notice and service of notice. Notice of reassessment is issued to the assessee when it is served on him. A notice of reassessment issued against the assessee before limitation but served on the assessee after limitation would be without jurisdiction, void and ineffective." (4) We are respectfully in agreement with the above observations. Similar view was taken by a learned single judge of the Calcutta High Court in Lilooah Steel & Wire Co. Ltd. v. Income-tax Officer, (4). Mr. Awasthy has placed reliance on a Full Bench judgment of this court in Seth Balkishan Das v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Patiala (5). In that case the question referred to this court was : whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the service of the notice under section 34 on the assessee was invalid at law as copy of the notice was not affixed at any conspicuous place in the court-house or at any conspicuous place in the income-tax office. The matter for decision before the Full Bench was absolutely different. The learned counsel cannot derive any benefit from that case. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the opinion that the words "issue" and "serve" are interchangeable and that the word "issue" has been used in section 1489 of the 1961 Act in the same sense in which the word "serve" has been used." 12. As per these decisions, thus, the notice of reassessment under section 148 of the Act had to be served on the assessee. In this context, we may examine the stand of the Department. We may recall, the notice dated 15.3.2018 was despatched to the petitioner's address as contained in her

ITA No. 2092/Mum/2017 A.Y. 2006-07 25 Benco Finance & Investment Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT, Central Circle-40, Mumbai

PAN card. This notice was returned by the postal department on or around 22.3.2018 with the remark 'left'. It is also an admitted position that the petitioner had not intimated to the Department about her change of address. After receiving the envelope containing the notice from the postal department, till 31.3.2018 which was the last date for service of such notice, the department took no further steps. In this background, the question is can the Department contend that there was due service of the notice. 13. Section 282 of the Act pertains to service of notice generally and reads as under: "Service of notice generally. 282. (1) The service of a notice or summon or requisition or order or any other communication under this Act (hereafter in this section referred to as "communication") may be made by delivering or transmitting a copy thereof, to the person therein named, - (a) by post or by such courier services as may be approved by the Board; or (b) in such manner as provided under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) for the purposes of service of summons; or (c) in the form of any electronic record as provided in Chapter IV of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (21 of 2000); or (d) by any other means of transmission of documents as provided by rules made by the Board in this behalf. (2) The Board may make rules providing for the addresses (including the address for electronic mail or electronic mail message) to which the communication referred to in sub-section (1) may be delivered or transmitted to the person therein named. Explanation. - For the purposes of this section, the expressions "electronic mail" and "electronic mail message" shall have the meanings as assigned to them in Explanation to section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (21 of 2000)." 14. As per the sub-section (1) of section 282 thus, the service of notice or summons, etc. may be made by delivering or transmitting a copy to the person named, inter alia as per clause (a) by post or by such courier service as may be approved by the Board or in such manner as provided under the Code of Civil Procedure for the purposes of service of summons. The Department has followed the procedure envisaged in clause (a) of sub- section (1) of section 282 of attempting to deliver the notice by post. 15. Rule 127 of the Rules pertains to service of notice, summon, requisition, order and other communications, the relevant portion of which reads as

ITA No. 2092/Mum/2017 A.Y. 2006-07 26 Benco Finance & Investment Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT, Central Circle-40, Mumbai

under: "Service of notice, summons, requisition, order and other communication. 127.(1) For the purposes of sub-section (1) of section 282, the addresses (including the address for electronic mail or electronic mail message) to which a notice or summons or requisition or order or any other communication under the Act (hereafter in this rule referred to as "communication") may be delivered or transmitted shall be as per sub- rule (2) The addresses referred to in sub-rule (1) shall be— (a) for communications delivered or transmitted in the manner provided in clause (a) or clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 282— (i) the address available in the PAN database of the addressee; or (ii) the address available in the income-tax return to which the communication relates; or (iii) the address available in the last income-tax return furnished by the addressee; or (iv) in the case of addressee being a company, address of registered office as available on the website of Ministry of Corporate Affairs: Provided that the communication shall not be delivered or transmitted to the address mentioned in item (i) to (iv) where the addressee furnishes in writing any other address for the purposes of communication to the income-tax authority or any person authorised by such authority issuing the communication: Provided further that where the communication cannot be delivered or transmitted to the address mentioned in item (i) to (iv) or any other address furnished by the addressee as referred to in first proviso, the communication shall be delivered or transmitted to the following address:- (i) the address of the assessee as available with a banking company or a co-operative bank to which the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 (10 of 1949) applies (including any bank or banking institution referred to in section 51 of the said Act); or...." 16. As per sub-rule (1) of Rule 127 for the purposes of sub-section (1) of section 282, the addresses to which a notice or a summons, etc. may be delivered or transmitted, shall be as per the sub-rule (2). Clause (a) of sub- rule (2) of Rule 127 includes four sources of address for such transmission.

ITA No. 2092/Mum/2017 A.Y. 2006-07 27 Benco Finance & Investment Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT, Central Circle-40, Mumbai

First one being the address available in PAN database of the addressee. It was at this address that the notice in question was despatched. The first proviso to sub-rule (2) provides that the said communication shall not be delivered at any of the above mentioned addresses where the assessee has furnished any other address for such purpose, which is not in the present case. The further proviso to sub-rule (2) which is of considerable importance to us provides that where communication cannot be delivered or transmitted to the addresses mentioned in item Nos.(i) to (iv) or the address furnished by the assessee as per the first proviso, the communication shall be delivered or transmitted to the addresses given below the said further proviso. At item No.(i) is the address of the assessee as available with the Banking company or a cooperative bank to which Banking Regulations Act, 1949 applies. 17. Since the delivery of the notice could not be made at the address of the assessee available in PAN database, by virtue of the further proviso to sub- rule (2) of Rule 127, the communication had to be delivered at the address as available with the banking company. 18. It is undisputed that the Department had access to the petitioner's bank account. It is precisely from the activities in such bank account that the department had gathered the material prima facie believing that the income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment. In terms of Rule 127 and in particular, sub-rule (2) therefore, having regard to the further proviso therein, the Department had to deliver the notice of reassessment at the petitioner's address given by her to the bank where her account was maintained. No such steps were taken. Service of notice, therefore, was not complete. 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 proceeded further with the reassessment proceedings. His consequential steps of attempting to serve the notices of scrutiny assessment were of no consequence. Reopening of assessment was invalid. No valid assessment thereon could have been framed. 19. In the result, the impugned notice dated 15.3.2018 and the consequential order of reassessment passed by the Assessing Officer are set aside. All subsequent steps for coercive recovery of the tax dues arising out of such order of assessment are also set aside. The attachment of the petitioner's bank accounts would, therefore, stand nullified. The petition is allowed and disposed off accordingly.‖ As in the case before us the notice u/s 148, dated 19.03.2013 had been served on the assessee for the first time on 25.06.2013 i.e beyond the prescribed period of 6 years from the end of the relevant assessment year which expired as on 31.03.013, therefore, respectfully following the aforesaid judgment of the Hon‘ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Harjeet Surajprakash Girotra (supra) we are of the considered view that the A.O had

ITA No. 2092/Mum/2017 A.Y. 2006-07 28 Benco Finance & Investment Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT, Central Circle-40, Mumbai

invalidly assumed jurisdiction for reopening the concluded assessment of the assessee company and passed the reassessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147, dated 24.03.2014. Accordingly, we herein in the backdrop of invalid assumption of jurisdiction by the A.O u/s 147 of the Act quash the reassessment order passed by him u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147, dated 24.03.2014.

Order pronounced in the open court on 10.08.2021. Sd/- Sd/- M. Balaganesh Ravish Sood (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) Mumbai, Date: 10.08.2021 PS: Rohit Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. Assessee 2. Respondent 3. The concerned CIT(A) 4. The concerned CIT 5. DR ―B‖ Bench, ITAT, Mumbai 6. Guard File BY ORDER,

Dy./Asst. Registrar ITAT, Mumbai