Sponsored
    Follow Us:

Case Law Details

Case Name : Veena Devi Karnani Vs Income Tax officer (Delhi High Court)
Appeal Number : W.P.(C) 7540/2018
Date of Judgement/Order : 14/09/2018
Related Assessment Year : 2010-11
Become a Premium member to Download. If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Sponsored

Veena Devi Karnani Vs ITO (Delhi High Court)

Rule 127(2) clearly states that the addresses to which a notice or summons or requisition or order or any other communication may be delivered or transmitted shall be either available in the PAN database of the assessee or the address available in the income tax return to which the communication relates or the address available in the last income tax return filed by the assessee – all these options have to be resorted to by the concerned authority – in this case the AO. Therefore, in the facts of this case when the AO issued the reassessment notice, as he did on 13.12.2013 – he was under a duty to access the available PAN data base of the addressee or the address available in the income tax return to which the communication related or the address available in the last income return filed by the addressee. The returns for A.Y. 2011-12 and 2012-13 had already been filed on 22.02.2012 and 13.12.2012 respectively, reflecting the changed address but with the same PAN and before the same AO. The AO omitted to access the changed PAN database and going by the explanation of the Revenue, he merely mechanically sent notices at the old address. Even after issuing the reassessment notice, all succeeding notice under Section 142(1), were sent to the old address. It was in these circumstances that the reassessment was completed on best judgment basis.

The AO appears to have completely and mechanically proceeded on the information supplied to him by the bank without caring to address himself to the correct position in law and deduced to ensure that the reassessment notice (which is a matter of moment as far as the assessee is concerned) was issued properly and served at the correct address in the manner known to law.

In this case Section 148 notice was never served upon assessee as AO, instead of proceeding to comply with rule 127, i.e., examining the PAN database or subsequent year returns to ascertain the correct address, merely dug out the old address and proceeded to complete reassessment in a mechanical manner, therefore, Assessment order passed under section 147 was invalid.

FULL TEXT OF THE HIGH COURT ORDER / JUDGMENT

Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.

Sponsored

Join Taxguru’s Network for Latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Sponsored
Sponsored
Search Post by Date
July 2024
M T W T F S S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031