Case Law Details
Digvijay Advisor Pvt. Ltd. Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi)
A perusal of the above reply of the Assessing Officer shows that notice u/s 148 dated 31.03.2015 was served on the assessee through affixture in presence of Inspector of the Ward. From the details filed by the assessee in the paper book, it is seen that the reasons were recorded on 31.03.2015. The reasons so recorded were sent for approval to the Addl. CIT on 31.03.2015, the Addl. CIT gave his approval on 31.03.2015, the file was received back by the Assessing Officer on 31.03.2015. The notice u/s 148 of the Act was handed over to the notice server and the area inspector on the very same date and the notice was served through affixture on the same date instead of first attempting to serve the same in person or through post. I, therefore, find merit in the arguments of the learned counsel for the assessee that no notice u/s 148 of the Act was ever served to the assessee and even if it is accepted that such a notice is served through affixture even then also the same is not valid service being served after office hours and the notice so affixed does not bear the name of any witness of the localities other than the Ward Inspector who accompanied the notice server. The chronology of events that has taken place clearly shows that no notice u/s 148 was ever served upon the assessee before 31.03.2015 and therefore, I find force in the arguments of the learned counsel for the assessee that since no notice u/s 148 of the Act was served on the assessee before 31.03.2015, therefore, such reassessment proceedings are not in accordance with law and has to be quashed. In this view of the matter, I quash the reassessment proceedings. Since, the assessee succeeds on the above two legal grounds i.e. giving approval by the Addl. CIT in a mechanical manner and non-service of notice u/s 148 of the Act before the specified date, the other plank of arguments made by the assessee challenging the validity of reassessment proceedings as well as the addition on merit become academic in nature and therefore, the same are not being adjudicated.
FULL TEXT OF THE ITAT JUDGEMENT
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 11.03.2019 of the learned CIT(A)-34, New Delhi, relating to Assessment year 2008-09.
2. Fact of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a private limited company and filed its return of income on 27.09.2008, declaring income of Rs.42,396/-. In this case, information was received from the Investigation Wing that the assessee has obtained accommodation entries of Rs.30 lakhs on account of share capital. The Assessing Officer, thereafter initiated reassessment proceedings u/s 147 of the Act after recording the reasons and with the approval of the competent authority. The reasons so recorded were provided to the assessee and the objections to the reopening filed by the assessee were disposed of by the Assessing Officer. Subsequently, during the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer asked the assessee to explain the identity and creditworthiness of the loan creditor and genuineness of the transaction. Rejecting the various explanation given by the assessee and rejecting the objections of the assessee to such reopening of assessment for non-issue of notice u/s 148, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment u/s 147/143(3) of the Act, determining the total income of the assessee at Rs.31,02,400/-, wherein, he made addition of Rs.30 lakhs u/s 68 of the Act and further an amount of Rs.60,000/- being unexplained expenditure incurred for obtaining the accommodation entries u/s 69C of the Act.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
