Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3.14 Most of the decisions quoted by the appellant have been considered by the ITAT in the case of Chandra Bhan Bansal v. DCIT reported above. I will discuss some of the other cases to show as to how the facts of those cases are difference from the facts of the present case. I start with the decision in the case of P.N. Sasi Kumar and Ors. v. CIT 170 ITR 80 (Ker.). In this case notice of reassessment of an A.O.P was issued to a member without specifying where it was on the member or principal officer of A.O.P. It was on these facts that the following question was referred before the Honble High Court Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Honble ITAT was justified in coming to the conclusion that the proceedings vide notice dated September 2, 1977 were validly initiated. (2) whether on the facts and in circumstances of the case the Appellate Tribunal had material to come to the conclusion that the notice issued to the individual was only a mistake curable and not one which affects the jurisdiction although the assessment was made in the status of an Association of person. The facts of the present case are totally different there is no doubt regarding the identity or the status of the person against whom the proceedings were initiated and the notice under Section 148 was issued and served. While delivering the judgment in this case the Honble High Court relied on the Commentary given in Kanga and Palkhiwala Law and Practice of Income tax Volume -1 page 910. The service of notice has given in Section 282 has been dealt with by the same author on page 1696 of VIII Edition they have mentioned that where a notice is served otherwise than by post, e. g. through a peon or process server, the notice need not be served personally on the assessee. They have given the citation of the case of Rex v. Ismail 1 ITC 192 in this regard. The notice need not be served personally on the assessee. It may be served on his authorized agent. On this point the learned author have quoted the cases of Mithoolal v. CIT 64 ITR 377; Jangi v. CIT 3 ITC 418; Ramanathan v. CIT 2 ITC 474. Service at assessees business premises on an agent exercising authority in respect of Income tax matters, though not authorized in writing in that behalf, is valid service under this section. (Himmatram v. CIT 5 ITC 133; Tiwari v. CIT 46 ITR 236 and CWT v. Ila Pal 82 ITR 936.) In the present case the notice was duly served on the authorized representative of the appellant as mentioned earlier. The AO had the jurisdiction to reassess the income by properly issuing the notice under Section 148. The assessment order was properly and legally completed because the notice under Section 148 was only served on the authorized representative of the appellant. The appellant had been given opportunities by issuing notice under Section 142(1) for filing the return of income before the assessment was completed. The appellant never challenged the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer at the stage of assessment. The learned representative of the appellant was made aware of the material available on records and also given photo copies there of. In view of this the service of notice and the assessment order framed is held to be valid.