Section 143(2) – The statutory notice u/s 143(2) of the Act issued by the non-jurisdictional A.O. is void ab initio – If there are discrepancies in the details as per notice issued and details as per postal tracking report, then that cannot be considered as valid service of notice

5.       [2019] 76 ITR (Trib.) 107 (Del.)

Rajeev Goel vs. ACIT

ITA No. 1184/Del/2019

A.Y.: 2014-15

Date of order: 26^th September, 2019

Section 143(2) – The statutory notice u/s 143(2) of the Act issued by the non-jurisdictional A.O. is void ab initio – If there are discrepancies in the details as per notice issued and details as per postal tracking report, then that cannot be considered as valid service of notice

FACTS

The assessee’s case was selected for scrutiny by issuing statutory notice u/s 143(2). The notice was issued by the non-jurisdictional A.O., i.e., A.O. Circle 34(1), and without any order u/s 127 for transfer of the case from one A.O. to another. Without prejudice to the assessee’s contention that the notice was issued by non-jurisdictional A.O., notice u/s 143(2) was not served upon the assessee. While serving notice u/s 143(2), there were discrepancies in the address stated in the notice and the address mentioned in the tracking report of the post. The address mentioned in the notice was with Pin Code 110034 and the Pin Code as per the tracking report was 110006.

The assessee had filed an affidavit before the A.O. claiming that no notice u/s 143(2) was served upon him. He had produced all possible evidences to prove that there were discrepancies while serving the said notice and also that the assessment was initiated by non-jurisdictional A.O. These contentions were not accepted by the A.O.

Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal to the CIT(A) claiming that the statutory notice u/s 143(2) was issued by the non-jurisdictional A.O. and, thus, the assessment was void ab initio. Without prejudice to this, the statutory notice u/s 143(2) was not validly served upon the assessee. The CIT(A) held that the notice was served upon the assessee and the assessee had failed to raise objections within the stipulated period prescribed u/s 124(3) of the Act and hence dismissed the assessee’s appeal.

Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal to the Tribunal.

HELD

The Tribunal observed that there was a difference between the address mentioned in the PAN database and the address mentioned in the return of income filed by the assessee. The jurisdiction of the assessee as per his address in the PAN database was with the A.O. Ward 39(1), whereas the jurisdiction of the assessee as per his address in his return of income was with A.O. Circle 47(1). However, the notice was issued by the A.O. Circle 34(1) who had no jurisdiction over the assessee either on the basis of his residential address or on the basis of his business address. Further, no order u/s 127 of the Act was passed either by the Commissioner of Circle 34(1), or the Commissioner of Circle 47(1) for transfer of the case from one A.O. to another A.O. Thus, the notice issued by the A.O. Circle 34(1) was held to be void ab initio as it was issued by the non-jurisdictional A.O.

Further, the Tribunal observed that even if the notice u/s 143(2) issued by the A.O. Circle 34(1) was considered to be valid, the notice was not duly served upon the assessee. The address mentioned in the notice was one of Delhi with Pin Code 110034, whereas the notice had been delivered to a Delhi address with Pin Code 110006. As regards service of notice, the assessee had filed an affidavit before the A.O. Circle 47(1) claiming that no notice u/s 143(2) was served upon him. The assessee had produced all possible evidences to prove that there were discrepancies while serving notice u/s 143(2). Besides, there was also a difference in the name mentioned in the notice which was Rajeev Goel, whereas that mentioned in the tracking report was Ranjeev Goel. Hence, on the basis of the aforementioned discrepancies, the notice was held to be not validly served upon the assessee.