Carissa Investment Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi)
Notice u/s 143(2) Sent to Wrong Address Vitiates Entire Proceedings- Presumption of Valid Service Lost When AO Ignored Correct Address, Rules ITAT Delhi
Assessee, an investment company, filed return for AY 2014-15 on 29.09.2014 giving address B-97, 2nd Floor, Amrit Puri Garhi, East of Kailash, New Delhi-110065 & email [email protected]. Despite this, AO issued notice u/s 143(2) on 18.09.2015 at a different address: C-9, 3rd Floor, East of Kailash, New Delhi. The notice was also emailed to [email protected] (taken from MCA site) & served by affixture at the wrong address. Assessee had already informed AO twice (15.10.2014 & 22.10.2014) about the correct address during AY 2012-13 assessment, which AO acknowledged & used in that year. Yet, for AY 2014-15, wrong address was used. CIT(A) upheld assessment citing valid service via MCA email & PAN address, relying on SC ruling in PCIT Vs. Iven Interactive Ltd. (2019).
Assessee’s Argument:
- Notice at wrong address invalidated jurisdiction.
- AO had been specifically informed & had accepted correct address in earlier years.
- Email to unrelated MCA-linked ID & affixture at wrong premises could not substitute valid service.
Tribunal’s Findings:
- When correct address was on record & repeatedly informed, issuing notice to wrong address was unjustified.
- Presumption of valid service under Evidence Act applies only if sent to “last known correct address.”
- Reliance on Iven Interactive Ltd. was misplaced since in that case no intimation of new address was given, whereas here AO was duly informed.
- Since service of notice u/s 143(2) was defective, entire assessment stood vitiated.
- Assessee’s appeal allowed, assessment quashed. Revenue’s cross-appeal dismissed.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT DELHI
