Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

11. The above findings of the ld. CIT(A) have not been challenged by the Revenue Department in the departmental appeals. Therefore, it is proved on record that the theory of service of notice by affixture was wholly unreliable and unjustified and would not support the case of the AO. Even for the sake of arguments, it may be believed that Inspector has gone to the residence of assessee at 33, Circular Road, Firozabad, the address mentioned in the notice u/s. 148 dated 30.03.2007 and the Inspector gave report on the said notice that the assessee did not reside at the above given address, however, it was an incorrect address of the assessee for the purpose of service. Where was the necessity for the Assessing Officer to direct the Inspector for service of notice through affixture at the same incorrect address. The ld. counsel for assessee submitted that the AO passed the re- assessment order at the correct address of the assessee, i.e, 29-30, Ganesh Nagar, C.O. Nos. 02 to 09/Agra/2012 Firozabad and also submitted that same address was available to the Revenue Department prior to issue of notice because the search was conducted in the case of assesses prior to 148 proceedings and during the course of search, statements were recorded on 14/15.09.2006 onwards and Panchnama was prepared in which the address of the assessee has been correctly shown as 29-30, Ganesh Nagar, Firozabad. The copies of the statements of the assessees and Panchnama are filed in the paper book at pages 99 to 115. The ld. counsel for the assessee, therefore, rightly contended that the correct address of the assessee was available to the Revenue Department prior to the reopening of the assessment. Since the correct address was available with the Revenue department on 14/15.09.2006, therefore, there was no need to mention incorrect address of the assessee in the notice u/s. 148 dated 30.03.2007 as 33, Circular Road, Firozabad. Thus, the last known address of the assessee was available to the Revenue Department, but neither the AO nor the Inspector nor other responsible Officer of the Revenue Department made any attempt to serve the assessee with the notice u/s. 148 at their correct address by issuing notice on 30.03.2007. The things would not end here because the report of the Inspector was clearly proved to be false, as the report of the Inspector stated that the notice was affixed at 33 Circular Road, Firozabad in the presence of Shri Ram Kumar S/o Shri Dushyant Kumar, 35, Nari Basti Firozabad. The assessee, however, filed affidavit before the AO(PB-71) of Shri Balbir Singh, S/o Shri Jayveer Singh, resident of 35 Nai Basti Firozabad who has affirmed in his C.O. Nos. 02 to 09/Agra/2012 affidavit that he is residing at that address and no person by the name of Ram Kumar S/o Shri Dushyant Kumar was residing at his residence. The affidavit could not be rebutted by AO as per finding of ld. CIT(A). Therefore, the affidavit of Shri Balbir Singh also falsifies the report of the Inspector that the notice dated 30.03.2007 was taken by him at the incorrect address of the assessee for the purpose of service. The assessee also filed certificate of Head Post Office, Firozabad (PB-70), in which it is confirmed that the registered letter dated 03.04.2007 in the name of assessee was sent by ACIT, Firozabad which is delivered back on 09.04.2007, as the addressee was not residing at the given address. The ld. counsel for the assessee, therefore, rightly contended that no actual notice was issued on 30.03.2007 because the entire story of issue of notice through Inspector was manipulated by the Revenue Department to defeat the provisions of law. The ld. CIT(A) also at the appellate stage called for the corroborative evidences of issue of notice on 30.03.2007, but no evidence was produced by the AO. Since 30.03.2007 was a working day and even post office was not closed on 31.03.2007 and admittedly, no notice was issued to the assessee through registered post on 30.03.2007 would prove that actually no notice was issued to the assessee on 30.03.2007. The ld. counsel for the assessee rightly contended that it was manipulated affair of the AO to take the notice within the period of limitation because the AO at the assessment stage issued notice u/s. 142(1) dated 07.11.2008 seeking information from the assessee, which was sent at the correct address of the C.O. Nos. 02 to 09/Agra/2012 assessee, i.e., 29-30, Ganesh Nagar, Firozabad, copy of which is filed at PB-44. It is not clarified by the AO as to how he has suddenly found the correct address of the assessee for the purpose of calling information from the assessee despite it was available to the AO prior to the issue of notice u/s. 148 being the correct address noted in the search proceedings. Hon'ble Gujrat High Court in the case of Kanu Bhai M. Patel (HUF) vs. Hiren Bhatt or His Successors to Office and Others, 334 ITR 25 held as under :

(ix). CIT vs. Rajesh Kumar Sharma, 311 ITR 235 (Del.), in which it was held as under :

C.O. Nos. 02 to 09/Agra/2012 "Service of notice under s. 148 to an employee of the assessee did not amount to service of notice on the assessee as there is nothing to suggest that the said employee was authorized to accept any notice on behalf of the assessee or was an agent of the assessee; service of notice by speed post was also not valid as the same was sent at an incorrect address and the Revenue has not shown that it was addressed correctly but the receipt prepared by the Postal Department was incomplete."