Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, Carissa Investment Pvt. Ltd., is in appeal against the order of the CIT(A). The primary issue revolves around the validity of the notice u/s 143(2) issued by the AO, with the assessee contending it was not served within the stipulated time on the correct address.
Held
The Tribunal held that the notice u/s 143(2) was not served correctly as it was issued to an incorrect address, despite the AO being informed of the correct address previously. This vitiated the assessment proceedings.
Key Issues
Whether the notice under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was validly served on the assessee on its correct address, and if not, whether it vitiates the assessment proceedings.
Sections Cited
143(3), 143(2), 282, 127, 282(1)(c), 142(1)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCHES: F : NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA
Assessment Year: 2014-15 Carissa Investment Pvt. Ltd., Vs ACIT, B-97, 2nd Floor, Circle-5(2), Amrit Puri, Garhi, New Delhi. East of Kailash, New Delhi – 110 065. PAN: AAACC3277A Assessment Year: 2014-15 ACIT, Vs. Carissa Investment Pvt. Ltd., B-97, 2nd Floor, Circle-5(2), New Delhi Amrit Puri, Garhi, East of Kailash, New Delhi – 110 065. PAN: AAACC3277A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Mayank Patawari, Advocate & Shri Aakash Ojha, Advocate Revenue by : Ms Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 31.07.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 30.09.2025 ORDER PER ANUBHAV SHARMA, JM: These are cross appeals preferred by the assessee as well as the Revenue against the order dated 14.11.2019 of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-31, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the ld. First Appellate Authority or ‘the Ld. FAA’ for short) in Appeal Nos.28/18-19/117/17-18 arising out of the appeal before it against the order dated 20.12.2016 passed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as ‘the Act’) by the ACIT, Circle-5(2), New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Ld. AO).
At the time of hearing, the ld.AR primarily rested the case arguing ground No.2 which is reproduced below:- “2. That the ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts by considering that notice u/s 143(2) was served upon the appellant within the stipulated time in terms of the provision of section 282.”
This claim of the assessee has been countered by the Revenue by filing a report taken from the AO and as per the said report, the assessee, Carissa Investment Private Limited (PAN: AAACC3277A), is a private limited company engaged in investment-related activities. The return of income for the Assessment Year 2014-15 was filed electronically in Form ITR-6, verified and digitally signed by its Director, Shri Vinay Kumar Mehta, on 23.01.2023. The Income Tax Return Acknowledgement (Ack. No. 930776721230123) reflects the following registered address of the assessee:- B-97, 2nd Floor, Amritpuri, Garhi, East of Kailash, New Delhi - 110065.
Email IDs Associated with the Assessee 3.2 Two email addresses were prominently associated with the assessee during the relevant period: • carissainvestment1234@yahoo.in - This email ID was available in the Income Tax Business Application (ITBA) system and was provided by the assessee while filing its return. • altrainvestment@yahoo.com - This email ID appears on the official website of the Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA) under the contact details of Carissa Investment Private Limited. It is linked to the company's digital profile available to the public and to regulators. 3.3 Thus, both email IDs were traceable to and verifiably under the control of the assessee company. Service of Notice u/s 143(2) 3.4 The Department issued notice u/s 143(2) on 18.09.2015, which was served on the assessee by the following valid and recognised modes: • Email Communication: The notice was sent to both registered email IDs: o carissainvestment1234@yahoo.in (as per ITBA) o altrainvestment@yahoo.com (as per MCA website) • Physical Delivery via Inspector: The notice was also physically delivered by the departmental inspector at the assessee’s registered office located at: B-97, 2nd Floor, Amritpuri, Garhi, East of Kailash, New Delhi - 110065. This address was sourced from: ITR-V for A.Y. 2014-15 . PAN database; • MCA website records.
3.5 The mode and manner of service are compliant with the requirements of Section 282 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and Rule 127 of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. 3.6 The contention of the ld. counsel are that the AO was repeatedly informed of the correct addresses, however, the same has not been taken note of and that to incorrect addresses the notices were issued and served. A copy of notice was obtained through RTI which shows that the notice was served by way of affixture at C-9, Third Floor, East of Kailash, New Delhi- 110 065 which was not the correct address. 3.7 As per Section 282(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, any notice or communication may be delivered electronically to the address provided by the assessee. The Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) has clarified in several circulars that email is a valid and effective mode of service. In the present case: The primary email ID used (carissainvestment1234@yahoo.in) was uploaded by the assessee itself in the ITBA system. The secondary ID (altrainvestment@yahoo.com) is found on MCA’s portal, which is maintained and updated by the company.
3.8 Thus, service by email was valid and complete in terms of the Act.
Judicial Support: CIT v. Chetan Gupta (2015) 377 ITR 1 (Del) Service of notice to the email address available in the return and on record is valid service under the Act. Principal CIT v. I-Venue Technologies (P) Ltd. [2021] 440 ITR 111 (Madras HC). Notice sent by email at registered company email address is valid even if not responded to by the assessee.
Service by Inspector - Registered Address 3.9 Physical service was completed by the Departmental Inspector at the assessee’s address, as confirmed by: The address on the ITR-V; The address available in the PAN database; Judicial Support: • CIT v. Kanpur Plastic Pack Ltd. (2019) 414 ITR 34 (SC): Service at the address available in the PAN or company records is valid even if the assessee later claims non-receipt. • Y. Narayan Chetty v. ITO [1959] 35 ITR 388 (SC): Validity of service depends on proper despatch and adherence to prescribed modes, not on the recipient’s acknowledgment.
Multiple Valid Modes of Service Used 3.10 When more than one valid mode is used to serve a notice, the presumption under the Evidence Act, 1872 (Section 114(f)) is that the notice was duly served unless the assessee disproves it with substantive evidence. Here, the assessee has failed to furnish any material proof to rebut the presumption of valid service under law. Conclusion 3.11 The assessee’s contention that the notice under section 143(2) was not served is contrary to the verifiable record. The Department has complied with all statutory requirements and ensured that notice was sent: via email to addresses under the assessee’s control (including one available on MCA); via physical delivery at the registered address.
We have taken into consideration the rival contentions and what we find is that in regard to the present assessment year 2014-15, a copy of ITR available at pages 1-2 of the paper book shows that the assessee has mentioned address B- 97, Second Floor, Amrit Puri Garhi, East of Kailash, New Delhi – 110 065 and e-mail address mentioned in ITR is carissainvestment123@yahoo.com. Now, when this ITR was filed on 29.09.2014 for AY 2014-15, for AY 2012-13 on 29.09.2014 itself, notice u/s 143(2) was issued at the address C-9, 3rd Floor, East of Kailash, New Delhi. At pages No.2 to 5 of the handout of the paper book, the assessee has pointed out that on 15.10.2014, the AO was informed of the incorrect address. Thereafter, on 22.10.2014 also while filing the response created, the address was mentioned. Accordingly, the AO issued another notice u/s 143(2) in the proceedings for AY 2012-13 to the correct address. Thus, acknowledging the intimation and issuance to the assessee on the correct address at B-97, 2nd Floor, Amrit Puri Garhi, East of Kailash, New Delhi-110 065. Then, for AY 2012-13, the order u/s 143(3) was passed on 24.02.2015 at this correct address. Subsequently, however, on 18.09.2015 the impugned notice u/s 143(2) have again been issued to C-9, 3rd Floor, East of Kailash, New Delhi – 110 065. Thereafter, on 22.09.2015, the notice was e-mailed at the address: altarinvestment@yahoo.com. Further, the notice was served allegedly on 30.09.2015 by affixture on the alleged incorrect address of : 9, 3rd Floor, East of Kailash, Delhi – 110 065 and, in the mean time, for AY 2013-14, the assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Act was passed at the correct address B-97, 2nd Floor, Amrit Puri Garhi, East of Kailash, New Delhi-110 065. Further, notice u/s 142(1) on 02.05.2016 and 08.06.2016 were issued on the correct address : B-97, 2nd Floor, Amrit Puri Garhi, East of Kailash, New Delhi-110 065.
Now, we find that the ld.CIT(A) has dismissed this ground on the basis that copy of notice was e-mailed to the assessee at the e-mail address available at the MCA website and the physical address of the assessee was picked up from PAN data base and reliance has been placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case PCIT vs. Iven Interactive Ltd., CA No.8132 of 2019 dated 18.10.2019. However, what we find is that after the categorical information of the correct addresses to the AO on two occasions on 15.10.2014 and 22.10.2014, at the time of assessment proceedings for AY 2012-13, the same were taken note of by the AO for issuing assessment order for 2012-13 on 24.02.2015. Sill for issuing impugned notices on by post on 18.09.2015, email on 22.09.2015 and affixture on 30.09.15, incorrect address was mentioned. We are of considered view that when assesse has provided correct address then issuing of notices on an address which is not mentioned in the ITR cannot be justified by the tax authorities on the basis that the addresses of the assessee as available at MCA portal or PAN data base was preferred. If that is accepted then sanctity of presumption to be drawn of notices being served in due course will be lost. The presumption of notice being served by substituted services is based on establishing that last known correct address was mentioned to serve the notice. The facts narrated above are self speaking of the fact that it is not a case where assesse was not confronting AO of possible prejudice due to sending notices on incorrect addresses by informing of present address in pending assessment of a previous assessment year and which was duly acknowledged by AO by mentioning same in assessment year yet incorrect address was used to communicate further that too by affixation of notice. Thus principle laid by Hon’ble Supreme Court in PCIT vs. Iven Interactive Ltd., (supra), case law as relied by ld. CIT(A), that in absence of any specific intimation to the Assessing Officer with respect to change in address and/or change in the name of the assessee, the Assessing Officer would be justified in sending the notice at the available address mentioned in the PAN database of the assessee, is applicable to the benefit of assesse only, and same is ignored by ld. CIT(A). Thus on facts same was distinguishable.
6. Accordingly we are inclined to allow ground no. 2 in appeal of the assesse and that vitiates the whole assessment proceedings and the impugned assessment order. The appeal of assesse is allowed and of revenue is dismissed.