AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
PER SUDHIR KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 11.3.2016 of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals-9), New Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “Ld.CIT(A))”] pertaining to A.Y. 2007-08.
The assessee has raised as many as 19 grounds of appeal, but however, he only argued following the Ground No. 1, 3 & 4 which are interconnected to each other:-
1.That the notice issued u/s. 148 and reassessment proceedings initiated u/s. 147 is bad in law, without jurisdiction and barred by time limitation. The CIT(A) erred in upholding the same.
2.That no notice u/s. 147 r.w.s. 147 of the Act was issued and served on the assessee company, hence, the proceedings u/s. 148 is illegal, without jurisdiction and barred by limitation. The CIT(A) erred in upholding the same.
3.That, the CIT(A) has erred in observing, that, the notice u/s. 148 has been properly served through affixture without appreciating the fact that no notice has ever been issued within time limitation as per the provision of section 149 of the Act.
The brief facts relating to the issue are that the proceedings u/s 147 were initiated and after recording the decision and with the previous approval of Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-16, Delhi accorded by letter filed No Addl. CIT Range-16, 2013-14/928 dated 28.03.2014 notice u/s 148 was issued in this case. The AO further mentioned the notice u/s 148 was issued on 28.03.2014 which was sent by speed post acknowledgment no. Ed-137317219IN, which was received that unserved from the postal authorities. This notice has been sent at the address as provided by the assessee in its latest E-file ITR for the A.Y. 2013-14. i.e. at 36, ground floor, Hargovind Enclave, Vikas Marg, New Delhi. A copy of the said notice was got serve through a fixture made by a notice served, Mr. Rajinder Kumar, in the presence of Inspector of Income tax, Mrs. Kusumlata Pawar, as per their reports placed on record. In response to vide letter dated 28.01.2015 filed in the office dated 12.02.2015 the assessee requested to treat the ¡returned originally filed on 30.10.2007 as having been filed in responsible notice u/s 148.
During the course of appellate proceeding the assessee has submitted written submission on these grounds which are briefly are as under:-
Filed its written submission that assessee has filed its returned of income in A.Y. 2007-08 declaring a loss of Rs. -495757/- and same was processed u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 03.03.2009. Further the issue was noticed u/s 142(1) on 16.01.2015 received 28.01.2015 fixing the hearing on 28.01.2015.
The assessee assessee replied the nonce 16.01.2015 vide letter dated 28.01.2015 no proceeding is pending in the case of the assessee for the relevant year. As no notice u/s 148 was ever served on the assessee.
The AO has passed an order dated 20.02.2015 disposing of the objection even without the supplying the reason recorded to the assessee. The AO states that the notice u/s 148 was served through speed post which was received back unserved. The assessee raised the objections to the reasons recorded and to initiation of the reopening u/s 147 read with section 148 of the act vide letter dated 05.03.2015. in the objection the assessee raised the objection that no notice u/s 148 was issued served on the assessee. Further, it is also mention that reopening proceeding has been initiated at the behest of ADIT, (lnvestigation)(Unit-lll), New Delhi and not the violation of the assessing officer.
The assessee further submitted that the AO provided the details of the postal service’s after bowing through the details of postal services it has been found that the postal on alleged acknowledgment 137317219IN was booked on 10.03.2014 where as the assessing officer claimed was the issued on 28.03.2015. The assessee has further submitted that the envelope given by the assessing officer there is no remark by the postal authority, that the address is found or address is wrong or the address is not available op the said address. The address of the assessee is same and all the mails received on the same address during the period.
The assessee has submitted that no notice was served the details of speed post itself proof that all the stories after thought objection raised by the appellant.
. The assessee has also relied the following the decision:-
CIT vs. Chetan Gupta reported in 62 Taxman.com 249.
The assessee has submitted that in view of the above, the Hon’ble Court held that the issuance and service of the notice u/s 148 is mandatory as per the provision of section 148(1) of the act. The assessment proceedings u/s 147 initiated without the issuance and service of notice are invalid and liable to the quest. Further, onus on the revenue to show the proper issuance and service of the notice has been made in accordance with i section 282(1) of the act read with order file rule 12 and order 3 rules 6 of civil procedure court.
The assessee has also relied the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ACIT v. Hotel Blue Moon reported in 321ITR 362 and the Hon’ble Jurisdiction High Court in the case CIT v. Hotline international Pvt. Ltd. reported in 296 ITR 333 (Del) where it is held ¡that on account of no proper issuance and service of notice u/s 148 of the act on the assessee the reassessment proceedings were bad in law.
The assessee has: also submitted that notices were not issued before 31.03.2014. And duly served on the assessee in accordance to the section 282 of the Act read with order y. rule 12 an order 3 two and 6 CBC. In this regard the assessee has relied the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Narayan Chetty v. ITO reported in 35 ITR 388.
The copy of the remand report was sent to the AO. After considering the remand report the AO has summarized the contentions raised by the assessee in his report and has given the factual report in its remand report vide letter dated 29.02.2016. the same is reproduce here as under:-
Kindly refer to your letter F.No. CIT(A)-9/Remand Report/2015-16/226 dated 26.02.2016 on the above subject vide which para wise comments on the submission filed by the assessee in appeal have been called for from this office. The requisite para wise report is submitted as under:-
The assessee has submitted that no notice u/s 148 has been issued by the assessing officer prior 31.03.2014 which makes the reassessment proceedings illegal, bad in law and without jurisdiction. The assessing officer has alleged that the notice u/s 148 dated 28.03.2014 was prepared and issued on 28.03.2014 through speed post ack. No.ED137317219IN which was received back unserved from the postal department which is totally wrong and against the facts of the case. The assessing officer also provided the details of the postal services. After going through the details of the postal service’s it has been found that the postal on the alleged Ack NO.ED137317219IN was booked on 10.03.2014 whereas assessing officer claimed that the notice was issued on 28.03.2014. Further the envelope given by the assessing officer, there is no remark by the postal authority that the address is not found or address is wrong or the address is not available on the said address. It is important to mention that address of the assessee is same and also received all the mails on the said address during the period. In view of the above discussion and facts and circumstances, it is respectfully submitted that no notice has been issued before 31.03.2014. The assessing officer has also not discharged its onus to prove the issuance of the notice u/s 148 and also duly served on the assessee as per the requirement of section 151 of the Act. The details of the speed post is itself proof that all the story is after thought after the objection raised by the assessee appellant. The assessee has also relied upon certain decisions on this issue.
The above submissions of the assessee have been considered with reference to the assessment record and the same are not found tenable. A perusal of the assessment records reveals that notice u/s 148 was issued on 28.03.2014 and was sent by speed post. The said envelope containing the notice was received back unserved with the remarks of postal authorities that “Makaan No.36 HE ka G-P- khaali pada hai ,...vapis...Sd/- 31.3.014”. Since the said notice was received back unserved, the said notice was got served through affixture and the service by affixture was made by the Notice Server in the presence of Inspector of the Ward which was also declared valid by the AO on 07.04.2014. Therefore, the submissions of the assessee that no notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued in this case and that the service of the said notce was not made on the assessee, there are no remarks of the postal authorities etc. is not acceptable as the service effected through affixture is a valid service under the Income Tax Law as well as the provisions of Civil Procedure Code and also as per the provisions of General Clauses Act. Moreover, the objections raised by the assessee during the assessment proceedings were duly disposed off by the Assessing Officer vide order dated 16.03.2015 (copy enclosed). The decisions relied upon by the assessee have also been examined and with due respect the same are of no help to the assessee as the notice u/s 148 was duly issued and served on the assessee. Further, it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in [1987] 33 Taxman 229 (SC) in the case of R K Upadhyaya v Shanabhai P Patel that it is mandatory to issue of notice u/s 148 within the prescribed time limit and service of notice is not a condition. Further more, in view of the provisions of 292BB of the Income Tax Act, the notice is deemed to be served upon the assessee and the assessee is precluded from taking any objection on this ground.
The copy of the remand report was sent to the appellant. The assessee has filed the replied which are summarily are as under:-
The assessee has submitted that no notice u/s 148 was issued in time limitation as provided a section 149. No notice was served on the assessee. The assessee has also submitted that no proceeding is pending in the case of assessee for relevant year, further, it has submitted that the AG disposed the objection vide letter dated 16.03.2015 that notice was issued on 28.03.2014 through speed post on the address situated at which was received back on 31.03.2014 unserved with the remarks Makaan No. 36, HE ka GP Khaali Pada Hai. Where the assessee assessee has full- fledged working registered office and also received the post and the mail in routine working at the same address on which notice was sent. The assessee has also submitted that the AO knows the address of the factory premises then what is a need to make a service ¡through affixture. The assessee has also submitted that if the post was booked on 110.03.2014 which was sent on 28.03.2014 because the AO has submitted that claim reasons was recorded on 25.03.2014. No notice was issued before 31.03.2014. The assessee has also relied the same decisions which were relied in written submission filed.
Ld. CIT(A) considered the submission of the assessee and order of the AO, and remand report of the AO and rejoinder of the appellant. In the grounds of appeal 1 to 3 the assessee has challenged the reassessment proceedings and service of notice. The AO has mentioned the fact that notice was issued on 28.03.2014 after recording the reasons and with the prior approval of Addl.CIT. This notice was sent through speed post at the latest address given by the appellant. The notice was received back unserved so notice was got served through affixture.
The assessee has objected that no notice was issued before 3103.2014. The assessee has also submitted that there was no remarks of postal authority not tenable. The AO has verified the fact in the remand report and submitted that the said envelope containing the notice received back unserved with the remarks of postal authority “makan no.36 HE ka G.P. khaali pada hai....vapis...Sd/- 31.03.2014”. The said notice was also got served through affixture by the notice server in the presence of the Inspector of the Ward. The service through affixture is a valid service under the IT Act, 1961 as well as provision of Civil Procedure Code and as per General clause Act. The assessee has also stated that notice should be served as per requirement of section 151 of the IT Act. In this regard the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in the case of RK Upadhyay vs. Shana Bhai P Patel (1987) 166 ITR 163 “that section 149 of the IT Act, 1961 reassessment-notice for-whether service of notice is not a condition precedent to conferment of jurisdiction in ITO but it is condition precedent to making of order of assessment-held, Yes. Further on this issue the Hon’ble High Court of Patna (Full Bench) in the case of CIT Vs. Sheo Kumari Devi (1986) the question was (whether limitation provisions of section 149 envisaged only issuance of notice to assessee and not its actual service on him and therefore reassessment proceedings and resultant penalty proceedings were wrongly annulled by tribunal-held, yes. Further the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court has held in the case of VRA Cotton Mills Private Limited vs Union of India Section 143 of the IT Act, 1961-Assessment-issue of notice-assessment year 2009-10 Date of receipt of notice by addressee is not relevant to determine, as to whether notice has been issued within prescribed period of limitation; expression ‘serve’ means date of issue of notice (in favour of revenue).
The assessee has objected in its submission that there is no remarks of postal authority that the address is not found or address is wrong or the address is not available on the said address. In this regard the AO has submitted in his remand report that the said envelope containing the notice was received back unserved with the remarks of the postal authority that “makan no.36 HE ka G.P. khaali pada hai...’.vapis...Sd/- 31.03.2014”. The said notice was received back unserved the said notice got served through affixture and the service by affixture was made by notice server in the presence of Inspector of ward which was also declared valid by the AO on 07.04.2014. In rejoinder the assessee has submitted that where the assessee has full fledged working registered office and also received the post and mail-in routine- working at the same address on which notice was sent hence, it is totally fail to understand that why the notice is remained unserved and AO forced to make the Service through affixture. The AO knows about the address of the factory premises of assessee than what is the need to make service through affixture which creates the doubt. In rejoinder the assessee has not denied that there was no remarks of the postal authority. On verification of record also it has been verified that in the envelope the postal authority has been given the remarks. This fact proves that notice was issued on 28.03.2014.
The assessee has made second objection regarding details/tracking record of speed post supplied by the AO. The number was ED137317219IN, the copy of the same was being annexed. The assessee has submitted that after going through the tracking details it was found that the speed post number ED137317219IN was booked on 10.03.2014 and same was received by Laxmi Nagar post on 31.03.2014 and after that the delivery attempted claimed it and the said alleged post was received back to the address on 02.04.2014 whereas the AO claimed that it the notice was sent through speed post on 28.03.2014 and same was received back on 31.3.2014 which is totally perverse to the evidence provided by the AO himself. The argument of the assessee is not tenable. The track record is not only for one day the track record contains the details from 10.03.2014 to 2.04.2014 where several entries are there regarding speed post on different date. Further from verification of the record it is clear that satisfaction was recorded on 2'5.03.2014 and the proposal for approval was sent by the AO to Addl. CIT vide letter no. F.NO. ITO/W- 16(3)/148/2013-14/307 on 25.03.2014. The Addl. CIT has approved the proposal for issuance of notice u/s 148 in this case vide no. F.no.Addl.CIT/Range-16/2013-14/928 dated 28.03.2014. The said notice was sent on 28.03.2014 which was received back on 31.03.2014 with postal authority remarks. Subsequently the notice was served through affixture on 07.04.2014 in the presence of Inspector Ms Kusum Lata Panwar.
In view of thé above Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee, against which the assessee is in appeal before us.
At the time of hearing, Ld. AR submitted that there was no notice u/s. 148 was served upon the assessee. He has submitted as per AO version, the notice u/s. 148 of the Act was prepared on 28.3.2014 and issued on 29.3.2014 through speed post acknowledgement no. ED-1373172IN, which was received back unserved from the postal authorities. The AO provided the details of the postal service to the assessee and as per postal details the acknowledgement 137317219IN which was provided by the AO was booked on 10.3.2014 whereas as per the department the same was issued on 28.3.2014. He further submitted that it is evident from the notice dated 28.3.2014 was issued to the assessee, the details also shows that the acknowledgement which was provided to the assessee was booked on 10.3.2014 and as per the version of the department the notice was booked on 29.3.2014. As per the details given by the AO, no notice was booked in the post office between the working hours, which shows that notice issued u/s. 148 is time barred. Secondly, on the affixture, no details was provided to the department against the assessee which proved that the assessee’s no notice was served by the department.
Ld. DR submitted that notice u/s 148 of the Act was served on 28.3.2014 which was received back unserved. After that service was made by the affixture. To support her contentions, she filed the written submissions, which read as under:-
“A. In this case , the assessee in his GOA from Ground No. 01 to 08 has challenged the proceedings intiated u/s 147/148. Apart from other grounds challenging the jurisdiction, in ground 3, the assessee has raised a point that no notice u/s 148 was issued and served on the assessee. In this regard, the grounds taken by the assessee are not on the fact of the case and deserve to be rejected on account of the following:
1.Notice u/s 148 was issued on 28.03.2014 at assessee address after Addl CIT approval dated 28.03.2014. It was not delivered and received back with postal remarks “UNSERVED”. The notice was served . through afiixture [Para 2 & 2.1 of AO and Para 2 of CIT (A) (order]
2.The fact of received back notice is acknowledged both by the AO and CIT (A) in their respective orders.
3.Assessee responds on 28.01.2015 (filed on 12.02.2015) to treat the original return filed on 30.10.2007 as return file u/s 148. Notice u/s 143 (2)/142(l) issued thereafter and assessee’s counsel appeared and participated in proceedings.! Para 3 & Para 6.2 of AO and Para 2 & 2.1 of CIT (A) order]
4.Assesse received reasons and filed objections which were disposed off on 20.02.2015 and also on 16.03.2015. [Para 6.2,6.3 & 6.9 of AO]
Alongwith the letter dated 20.02.2015, the AO also sends a copy of notice u/s 148 to the assessee .[Para 5 of letter dated 20.02.20IS.Assessee PB page 20-26.]
From the above it is found that notice u/s 148 was issued well within time prescribed u/s 149 of the ACT and has also been served before making of the order of assessment as per the mandate of sectio'n 148 (1) of the ACT. In the present case the notice was issued within the prescribed period of the limitation i.e., on 28.03.2014. In Para 2.4 page 6, Ld. CIT (A) has referred to the remarks dated 31.03.2014 of postal authorities on the envelope that there is no one at the said address. This is a clear evidence that the notice was issued well before the limitation date , received back and was subsequently served upon the assessee through affixure. The assessee vide letter 28.01.2015 had asked the AO to treat the return originally filed on 30.10.2007 as return in compliance to the notice u/s 148. Further, there is no completer absence of the notice itself as assessee has responded by replying that return of income filed u/s 139 (1) may be treated as that filed under section 148.
Therefore, it is clear that not only the notice has been issued within the period of limitation prescribed u/s 149 but it has also been served upon the assessee before making the assessment as per the mandate of section 148 (1).
Hon’ble Supreme Court in R K Upadhyaya vs Shanabhai P. Patel (1987) 33 taxmann 229 (SC) has held that service of notice u/s 148 is not a condition precedent to conferment of jurisdiction in AO but it is a condition precedent to making of order of assessment. Once a notice is issued within the period of limitations, jurisdiction becomes vested in the AO to proceed to reassess . The mandate of section 148(1) is that reassessment shall not be made until there has been service. (In the above case of RK Upadhyaya, notice was issued on 31.03.1970 under section 147(6) by registered post which was received by the assessee on 03.04.1970.)
As both the above requirements have been met in the case of our assessee, the reassessment made is perfectly legal and the objections/grounds raised by the assessee are not tenable.
A. As regards the challenge to 148 jurisdiction onther grounds, i it is humbly submitted that the following decisions may kindly be considered with regard to reopening of cases u/s 147 of I.T. Act and more particularly relating to cases where the assesses have challenged the re-assessment proceedings as being initiated without any valid “Reason to Belief ”; without reference to any fresh tangible material, and without any independent application of mind. In the following decisions, the Hon’ble courts have upheld the validity of re-assessment proceedings:-
1 PCIT Vs Paramount Communication (P.) Ltd. (2017-TIOL-253-SC-IT) (Copy enclosed) Where Hon’ble Supreme Court dismissed SLP of assessee. Information regarding bogus purchase by assessee received by DRI from CCE which was passed on to revenue authorities was 'tangible material outside record' to initiate valid reassessment proceedings.
PCIT Vs Paramount Communication (P.) Ltd. [2017] 79 taxmann.com 409 (Delhi)/r2017] 392 ITR 444 (Delhi)
Where Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that Information regarding bogus purchase by assessee received by DRI from CCE which was passed on to revenue authorities was 'tangible material outside record' to initiate valid reassessment proceedings.
2 - Experion Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT (Delhi High Court) (422 ITR 355) (115 taxmann.com 338)
In para 24 of the judgment the Hon’ble Court has held “In our opinion, the tangible material in the present case is information received by the AO from DIT (l&CI). It would thus be apposite to refer to the said referred report which has been placed to the record.” It has been further held in para 30 that “There cannot be any doubt from the reasons recorded, that the petitioner companies are beneficiaries of the funds received from 'Gold Singapore'. If needed, the investing entities do not have any creditworthiness to make such huge investments into the petitioner company, in our view, there would be sufficient cause or justification for the AO to attribute the income to the petitioner. Thus, at this stage, there are sufficient “Reasons to Believe” that such income has escaped assessment and to reopen the assessment proceedings. Since there is relevant material to form reasonable belief in the background of the facts noted above, at this stage of the proceedings, where the AO has yet to finally adjudicate the issues, it is not for this Court to deal with the questions as to whether the reopening of the assessment would ultimately result in creating further demand. We are therefore of the opinion that the AO had sufficient tangible materials and was justified in issuing notice for assessment.”
3.AGR Investment Ltd. Vs Addl. CIT (333 ITR 146) (Delhi) The Hon’ble High Court upheld the notice u/s 148 and held that there was material on the basis of which notice u/s 148 could be issued as the Assessing Officer had specific information from office of DIT (Inv.) as regards transaction entered into by assessee company with a number of concerns which have made accommodation entries and they were not genuine transactions.
C. Following are the cases where Hon’ble Courts have upheld the approvals/sanctions granted u/s 151(2) of the Act:-
1- “Experion Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT (Delhi High Court) (422 ITR 355) (115 taxmann.com 338)
1.It is a requirement for issuance of notice for reopening of assessment proceedings under section 151 of the Act that the Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner is satisfied, on the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer, that it is a fit case for issuance of such notice.
41.In the recorded reasons also, it has been noted that “necessary sanction to issue notice under section 148 of the Act is being obtained separately from the Pr CIT, Delhi 03, New Delhi as per the provisions of section 151 of the Act ”. In its reply on this issue, in the order dated25.09.2019 dismissing objections of the petitioner to the notice under section 148, it has been pointed out that the approval of the competent authority was obtained vide note sheet entries dated 31.03.2019 and the same was enclosed alongwith the order. However, the same has not been annexed to the present petitions. It has been argued that obtaining approval of the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax is not provided for under section 151 and therefore, the same is not justified. However, in the present case, approval/sanction has been obtained from both, the Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax as well as Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, which is the appropriate authority for issuance of such sanction, as noted in Commissioner of Income-tax-8 (Erstwhile CIT-III) V. Soyuz Industrial Resources Ltd [2015] 58 taxmann.com 336 (Delhi).
42.Further, it is the case of the petitioner that there was no independent application of mind by the sanctioning authorities for according approval. Whilst it is the settled position in law that the sanctioning authority is required to apply his mind and the grant of approval must not be made in a mechanical manner, however, as noted by the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in Prem Chand Shaw (Jaiswal) v Assistant Commissioner, Circle-38, Kolkata [2016] 67 taxmann.com 339 the mere fact that the sanctioning authority did not record his satisfaction in so many words would not render invalid the sanction granted under section 151(2) when the reasons on the basis of which sanction was sought could not be assailed and even an appellate authority is not required to give reasons when it agrees with the finding unless statute or rules so requires. The decision in United Electrical Co. Pvt. Ltd. (supra), as relied upon by the petitioner is distinguishable from the present case, as in the said case, there was no material on record to provide foundation for Assessing Officer's reasons to believe. Therefore, it was held that the recording of the satisfaction by the AO was unjustified and without independent application of mind. However, there is no requirement to provide elaborate reasoning to arrive at a finding of approval when the Principal Commissioner is satisfied with the reasons recorded by the AO. Similarly, in Virbhadra Singh v Deputy Commissioner, Circle Shimla [2017] 88 taxmann.com 888 (Himachal Pradesh) where the competent authority was in agreement with the reasons assigned by the Assessing Officer, so placed before him, which came to be considered and sanction accorded with proper application of mind, by recording “I am satisfied that it is a fit case for issuance of notice u/s 148”, the issuance of notice under section 147/148 was held to be valid.”
43.Therefore, it is clear that necessary sanction for issuance of notice under section 148, as required under section 151 had been obtained.”
2.Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in Prem Chand Shaw (Jaiswal) Vs Assistant Commissioner, Circle-38, Kolkata [2016] 67 taxmann.com 339 (Calcutta)
“the mere fact that the sanctioning authority did not record his satisfaction in so many words would not render invalid the sanction granted under section 151(2) when the reasons on the basis of which sanction was sought could not be assailed and even an appellate authority is not required to give reasons when it agrees with the finding unless statute or rules so requires.” It was further held that there is no requirement to provide elaborate reasoning to arrive at a finding of approval when the PCIT is satisfied with the reasons recorded by the AO.
3.Virbhadra Singh Vs Deputy Commissioner, Circle Shimla [2017] 88 taxmann.com 888 (Himachal Pradesh)
Where the competent authority was in agreement with the reasons assigned by the Assessing Officer, so placed before him, which came to be considered and sanction accorded with proper application of mind, by recording “I am satisfied that it is a fit case for issuance of notice u/s 148” ., the issuance of notice under section 147/148 was held to be valid.”
We have heard the rival contentions and perused the records. It was the contention of the assessee that no notice u/s. 148 has been issued and served within stipulated time limit. However, the AO noted that notice u/s. 148 dated 28.3.2014 is alleged to be issued on 29.3.2014 and the said notice was issued through speed post ack. No. ED-137317219IN, which was received back as unserved on 31.3.2014. The AO has provided the proof of postal tracking of the issuance alongwith the order disposing objection. However, it was the contention of the assessee that no notice has been issued before 31.3.2014. The assessee company has objected that no notice u/s. 148 is issued and served and issued on the assessee at the first instance as it received notice u/s. 142(1) of the Act dated 16.1.2015. The proof provided by the AO is itself does not discharge that notice is issued is prior to 31.3.2014 due to the fact that the post bearing no. ED-1371317219IN shows that the post was booked before 10.3.2014, where as the notice u/s. 148 is dated 28.3.2014 and the AO has not given any proof that on which the date notice was issued, as the AO says that the notice was issued on 28.3.2014 and DAK register says 29.3.2014. However, as per the postal service details provided by the AO shows that acknowledgement 137317219IN vide which item was booked by the department on 10.3.2014 whereas as per the department the same was issued on 28.3.2014. It is evident from the notice dated 28.3.2014 that the same was issued to the assessee, the details also shows that the acknowledgement which was provided to the assessee was booked on 10.3.2014 and as per the version of the department the notice was booked on 29.3.2014. As per the details given by the AO, no notice was booked in the post office between the working hours, which shows that notice issued u/s. 148 is time barred. Secondly, on the affixture, no details was provided to the department against the assessee which proved that the assessee’s no notice was served by the department. Hence, the AO has not discharged its onus that notice has been issued on or before 31.3.2014 and on which date the notice has been handedover to the post department hence, the notice is time barred and not tenable in the eyes of law. Thus, the same is quashed and resultantly, the assessment made on the basis of the said notice is also quashed. The legal grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly allowed. Since assessment has been quashed, as aforesaid, the other grounds on merits have become academic and need not be adjudicated.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.