S/s. 147, 148 – Reassessment cannot be done on the basis of a notice issued at the address mentioned as per PAN data when the new address was available in returns of income filed.
Facts :
On 30-03-2010 the Assessing Officer (AO), with the prior approval of the Additional CIT, issued a notice u/s. 148 requiring the assessee to file return of income for AY 2003-04. The notice was issued at an address taken from PAN data. The address given in the PAN data was address of the employer of the assessee where she was then working. Subsequently, the said employer company had shifted its address and the change in address was intimated to ROC as well. In the return of income filed for AY 2003-04, 2004-05 and 2005-06 (all filed before 30.3.2010) the assessee had stated her new address.
The assessee failed to comply with this notice and no return was filed. Thereafter, AO issued notices u/s. 142(1) on 09-06-2010, 06-08-2010 and 14-09-2010. The assessee claimed that it received first notice on 14-09- 2010. In response, the assessee filed a letter dated 22-09-2010 enclosing acknowledgement of Saral form and further stated that the assessee was not holding the relevant record for the assessment year and also that the initiation of the proceedings after lapse of six years was unjustified.
The AO was of the view that the provisions of the Act require issue of notice within a period of six years and not service thereof. The notice was issued within six years from the end of the assessment year. The AO completed the assessment by making an addition of Rs. 6,15,000.
Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal to CIT(A)who upheld the action of the AO.
Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal to the Tribunal.
Held :
The Tribunal noted that it is not disputed by the Department that notice dated 30-03-2010 u/s. 148 was issued at BE-63, Hari Nagar, New Delhi address. From the copy of returns filed for assessment years 2003-04, 2004-05 and 2005-06 prior to 30-03-2010, it is evident that the address of the assessee was BK- 22, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi – 110 052 which was available with the Department and, therefore, admittedly the notice was issued at the wrong address. The 6 year period from the end of the assessment year expired on 30-03-2010. Therefore, in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Eshaan Holding (P) Ltd. (2012) 344 ITR 541 (Del), it cannot be said that valid notice was issued u/s 148 to the assessee. The Delhi High Court had held as under:
“The first notice issued on January 29, 2004, by speedpost was said to have been served at the old address at East of Kailash. There was no proof of service on record. Even otherwise, this was not valid service because the assessee had already filed its return on November 28, 2003, and in this return address shown was Panchsheel Park. Thus, the record of the Department already contained the new address of the assessee. Before issuing notice u/s 148, it was expected of the Assessing Officer to have checked up if there was any change of address, because valid service of notice of reopening the assessment is a jurisdictional matter and this is a condition precedent for a valid reassessment.”
Following the ratio of the above mentioned decision, the Tribunal set aside the order of CIT(A) holding that initiation of proceedings u/s. 148 was not legal and, therefore, consequent assessment order framed by AO is quashed.
The appeal filed by the assessee was allowed.
