SH. ANIL RAWAL,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1670/DEL/2014Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 January 2016AY 2003-043 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the notices were not served at the correct address of the assessee, rendering the service invalid. Consequently, the assessment was quashed due to non-service of notice.

What were the facts?

The assessee's registered address and the address in his return of income was B 9, Gupta Palace, A-2/42, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi. However, notices under Section 148 and 143(2) of the Income Tax Act were issued to a different address, C-6, Nandini Apartments, J-1/64, Rajouri Gardens, New Delhi.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was whether the notices issued under Section 148 and 143(2) of the Income Tax Act were validly served on the assessee at his correct address.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 143(2)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘D’, NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI J. SUDHAKAR REDDY & SHRI CM GARG

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Kfumar Khiwani, C.A

PER J.SUDHAKAR REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

1.

This is an appeal filed by the Assessee directed against the order of the Ld.Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-IV, New Delhi dated 01.01.2014 pertaining to the Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2003-04.

2.

The sole issue that arises for our consideration in this appeal is whether the notice u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act 1961 (the Act) was validly served on the assessee. 3. We have heard Shri Rakesh Kumar Khiwani, Ld.Counsel for the assessee and Shri Ashis Mohanty, Ld.Sr.D.R. on behalf of the Revenue. 4. After considering rival submissions and examining the records, we hold as follows. 5. The assessee is a Director in Jagrawal Credits P.Ltd. with registered office at B 9, Gupta Palace, A-2/42, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi 110 027. In the PAN card as well as in the return of income filed by the assessee with Mr.Anil Rawal, New Delhi ITO, Ward 4(1), New Delhi the same address was given i.e B 9, Gupta Palace, A-2/42, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi 110 027.

6.

We find that notices u/s 148 of the Act was issued at the following address. Shri Anil Rawal, C-6, Nandini Apartments, J-1/64, Rajouri Gardens, New Delhi. Similarly notice u/s 143(2) of the Act dt. 29.11.2010 was also issued at the address at C-6, Nandini Apartments. Earlier notice u/s 143(2) dt. 16.12.2010 was also given at the address in Nandini Apartments. Similarly notice dt. 30.3.2010 u/s 148 of the Act was address at C-6, Nandini Apartments, J-1/64, Rajouri Gardens, New Delhi. 6.1. From the above facts it is clear that, all these notices were not served at the correct address. Hence this is not a valid service. The Ld.D.R. submits that, J1/64, Rajouri Garden and A-2/42, Rajouri Garden, does not make much of a difference and hence it should be held that the notice was correctly issued at the address at Rajouri Gardens. Such an argument cannot be countenanced. As the notice u/s 148 of the Act as well as notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was not issued at the correct address of the assessee, the claim of the assessee that no such notice was served on him is to be upheld. Thus the assessment is quashed for non service of notice and the appeal of the assessee is allowed.

7.

In the result assessee’s appeal is allowed. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 07th January, 2016.

More judgments on Section 148

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →