SACHIN KAUSHIK,MEERUT vs. ITO, WARD- 2(3), MEERUT

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3026/DEL/2018Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 October 2018AY 2010-114 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument that the notice under Section 148 was not properly served due to an incomplete address. Consequently, the assessment made under Section 144/148 was deemed not tenable.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer (AO) passed an ex-parte assessment order under Section 144/148 of the Income Tax Act. The assessee contended that the notice issued under Section 148 had an incomplete address, making proper service impossible.

What were the issues?

Whether the ex-parte assessment order passed under Section 144/148 is bad in law due to improper service of notice under Section 148.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 144,Section 44AD

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’ : NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI H.S. SIDHU

This appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the Order dated 19.3.2018 of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Meerut relevant to assessment year 2010-11. 2. The grounds raised in the appeal read as under:-

1.

That notice issued by AO under section 148 was having incomplete address therefore service of notice u/s. 148 was not possible. Copy of certified copy of reasons and notice u/s. 148 provided by AO is also supported the contention of the assessee therefore without service of notice u/s. 148 and assessment made u/s. 144/148 of is bad in law.

2.

That order u/s. 144/148 is made on complete address of the assessee therefore the AO is having correct address of the assessee. Even then the has not made proper service of notice u/s.

148.

Therefore, the assessment in correct fact is also bad in law.

3. That the assessee has made cash deposit of Rs. 27,13,500/- relating to sale of books. Therefore, in absence of books of accounts, net profit can be assessed @ 8% u/s. 44AD of Income Tax Act, 1961.

4. That the investment in name of Mansukh Securities relating to cash deposit was related to various clients for whom he was acting as sub broker and as the client suffered loss hence no profit was arrived from the sale.

5. That the assessee has right to add, modify or delete any ground during the appeal proceedings.

3.

Facts narrated by the revenue authorities are not disputed by both the parties, hence, the same are not repeated here for the sake of brevity.

4.

During the hearing, Ld. A.R. of the assessee, has stated that AO has passed the exparte order dated 28.11.2017 u/s. 144/148 of the Income Tax Act, despite the fact that that notice issued by AO under section 148 was having incomplete address therefore service of notice u/s. 148 was not possible. He further submitted that copy of certified copy of reasons and notice u/s. 148 provided by AO is also supported the contention of the assessee therefore without service of notice u/s. 148 and assessment made u/s. 144/148 of is bad in law. He further submitted that the order u/s. 144/148 is made on complete address of the assessee therefore the AO is having correct address of the assessee. Even then he has not made proper service of notice u/s. 148.

5.

On the contrary, Ld. DR relied upon the orders of the authorities below.

6.

I have heard both the parties and perused the records. I have also gone through the order passed by the revenue authorities as well as the contention raised by the assessee in the grounds of appeal

. I find force in the arguments of the Ld. Counsel of the assessee that AO has completed the assessment u/s. 144/148 of the Income Tax Act, despite the fact that notice issued by AO under section 148 was having incomplete address therefore service of notice u/s. 148 was not possible. I further find that the copy of certified copy of reasons and notice u/s. 148 provided by AO is also supported the contention of the assessee therefore without service of notice u/s. 148 and assessment made u/s. 144/148 is not tenable. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the issues in dispute are set aside to the file of the AO to decide the afresh under the law, after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to file all the necessary documents to substantiate his case and fully cooperate with the AO in the proceedings and did not take any unnecessary adjournment.

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →