Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

The present appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the CIT(A)-25, Mumbai, dated 11.04.2019, which in turn arises from the assessment order passed by the A.O under Sec. 144 r.w.s 147 of the Income Tax Act,1961 (for short ‗Act'), dated 10.11.2018. The assessee has assailed the impugned order on the following grounds of appeal before us:

―1. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the Assessment order passed u/s 144 read with section 147 of the IT Act,1961 on the basis of notice issued u/s 148 on the completely incorrect address of the appellant without complying with rule 127 of the IT Rules i.e. to examine the PAN Database to ascertain the correct address of the appellant.

4. The assessee being aggrieved with the order of the CIT(A) has carried the matter in appeal before us. As the assessee during the pendency of the appeal before us had expired on 22.06.2019 thus, his legal heir i.e Smt. Bharti Pankaj Shah (widow of the deceased assessee) vide a letter dated 23.12.2020 (alongwith affidavit) had sought for being brought on record as Mr. Pankaj Shantilal Shah Vs. ITO-27(2)(5) the l/heir of the deceased assessee, and had filed a revised memorandum of appeal. The ld. Authorized Representative (for short ‗A.R') for the assessee at the very outset of the hearing of the appeal assailed the validity of the assessment framed by the A.O under Sec. 144 r.w.s 147, dated 10.11.2018. It was submitted by the ld. A.R that as the impugned assessment was not preceded by any service on the assessee of a notice issued under Sec. 148 of the Act thus, the assessment therein framed was invalid and void ab-initio. Elaborating on her aforesaid contention, it was submitted by the ld. A.R that the assessee who was a senior citizen (since deceased) was a small time cloth merchant who during his life time was trading in cloth fabric. It was submitted by the ld. A.R that the assessee had way back filed his last income-tax return for A.Y. 2005-06, and thereafter, as his annual income in the subsequent years remained substantially below the basic exemption limit thus, no return of income for the said years was filed by him. It was averred by the ld. A.R that the residential address of the assessee was viz. ―Building No.59, Room No. 1764, Sagar Housing Society, Pant Nagar, Ghatkopar-(W), Mumbai 400075‖ and it was never changed during his life time. It was submitted by the ld. A.R that though the address borne on the notice under Sec. 148 (as gathered from a perusal of the records) was correctly stated however, that mentioned in the assessment order and also the other notices, viz. ―Goswami 1-2 Sapna Apartment, 3rd Floor, LBS Marg, Ghatkopar - (W), Mumbai - 400 086‖ was an incorrect address. It was further stated by the ld. A.R that although it was the claim of the revenue that the notice issued under Sec. 148, dated 21.03.2018 was uploaded electronically on the portal of income-tax, however, the service of the same by the said means was incomprehensible as the assessee did not have any e-mail address. In order to fortify her aforesaid claim the ld. A.R had drawn our attention to the screenshot of the income-tax portal page wherein though the date of issuance of the notice issued under Sec. 148, dated 21.03.2018 was mentioned, but the column referring to the date of service of the said notice was found blank. In order to dispel any doubts, it was submitted by the ld. A.R that as the date of service of notice was auto generated by the ITD system thus, the fact, that column referring to the date of service of the impugned notice in the income-tax portal page was found blank proved to the hilt that notice under Sec. 148, dated 21.03.2018 was not served on the assessee by the department through its Income-tax Business Application (for short ―ITBA‖). In sum and substance, it was the claim of the ld. A.R that de hors service of a notice under Sec. 148 upon the assessee, the assessment framed under Sec. 144 r.w.s 147, dated Mr. Pankaj Shantilal Shah Vs. ITO-27(2)(5) 10.11.2018 cannot be sustained and was liable to be vacated on the said count itself. It was further submitted by the ld. A.R that though the assessee's bank viz. Cosmos Cooperative Bank Ltd., Branch : Ghatkopar had in pursuance to the notice issued by the A.O under Sec. 133(6), dated 11.07.2018, therein vide its reply dated 30.07.2018 furnished the requisite details (including the address of the assessee), however, despite the said fact no attempt was made by the A.O to effect service of the notice under Sec. 148 at the correct address of the assessee. Alternatively, it was submitted by the ld. A.R that as the assessee was a small time cloth merchant and the cash deposits of Rs.16,74,860/- in his bank account during the year in question was sourced from the petty cash sales and redeposit of the cash withdrawals made during the year in question from the very same bank account thus, addition made by the A.O being highly arbitrary was liable to be vacated.

(iv) any email address made available by the addressee to the income tax authority or any person authorised by such income-tax authority.

Mr. Pankaj Shantilal Shah Vs. ITO-27(2)(5) (3) The Principal Director General of Income-tax (Systems) or the Director, Gene of Income-tax (Systems) shall specify the procedure, formats and Standard, for ensuring secure transmission of electronic communication and shall also responsible for formulating and implementing appropriate security, and retrieval policies in relation to such communication.]‖ In the backdrop of the mode and manner of service of a notice contemplated in Sec. 282 r.w Rule 127, we shall now test as to whether the Notice issued under Sec. 148, dated 21.03.2018 was validly served upon the assessee prior to framing of the assessment under Sec. 144 r.w.s 147, dated 10.11.2018. As is discernible from the assessment order, we find that it is a matter of fact borne from the record that the notice issued by the A.O under Sec. 148, dated 21.03.2018 and that issued under Sec. 142(1), dated 28.08.2018 were both returned unserved. As observed by us hereinabove, it is stated by the A.O that as the notice under Sec. 148 could not be served upon the assessee thus, the same, was served through affixture at the last known address of the assessee. Rebutting the aforesaid claim of the A.O, it is stated by the ld. A.R that no notice under Sec. 148 was ever served upon the assessee. We have given a thoughtful consideration to the aforesaid counter claims of the authorised representatives for both the parties. As observed by us hereinabove, it is the claim of the assessee that the address mentioned in the assessment order, viz. ―Goswami 1-2 Sapna Apartment, 3rd Floor, LBS Marg, Ghatkopar (W), Mumbai, 400 086‖ was not the correct address of the assessee. The ld. D.R had neither rebutted the aforesaid claim of the counsel for the assessee, nor placed on record any material which would irrefutably prove to the hilt that the notice issued under Sec. 148, dated 21.03.2018 was validly served through affixture at the last known address of the assessee. Rather, in the backdrop of the fact that the address mentioned in the assessment order viz. ―Goswami 1-2 Sapna Apartment, 3rd Floor, LBS Marg, Ghatkopar (W), Mumbai, 400 086‖ is not the correct address of the assessee thus, the aforesaid unsubstantiated claim of the A.O of having effected a valid service of the notice under Sec. 148, dated 21.03.2018 through affixture at the last known address of the assessee does not inspire any confidence and cannot be summarily accepted on the very face of it. We may herein observe that Sec. 282(1)(b) contemplates service of a notice under the Income-tax Act, in a manner, as provided under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) for the purpose of service of summons. As per Order V- Rule 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure (5 of 1908), where the Court is satisfied that for any reason the summons cannot be served in the ordinary way, it shall order the summons to be served by affixing a copy thereof in some conspicuous place in the Court-house, and also upon Mr. Pankaj Shantilal Shah Vs. ITO-27(2)(5) some conspicuous part of the house (if any) in which the defendant is known to have last resided or carried on business or personally worked for gain, or in such other manner as the court thinks fit. Accordingly, in case substituted mode of service i.e service of notice through affixture is to be resorted by the department then, as per Sec. 282 r.w Order V- Rule 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure (5 of 1908), the copy of the said notice is mandatorily required to be affixed at some conspicuous part of the house in which the assessee is known to have last resided or carried on business or personally worked for gain. However, in the case before us, nothing has been placed on record which would reveal that the A.O had got the notice issued under Sec. 148, dated 21.03.2018 served through affixture at the last known address of the assessee. In fact, as observed by us hereinabove, the fact that the A.O had referred to an incorrect address of the assessee in the body of the assessment order itself militates against the aforesaid unsubstantiated claim of the A.O of having carried out a valid service of the notice issued under Sec. 148, dated 21.03.2018 through affixture at the last known address of the assessee. In the backdrop of the aforesaid facts, we are unable to persuade ourselves to subscribe to the validity of the service by affixture of the notice issued under Sec. 148, dated 21.03.2018, as had been claimed by the A.O in the assessment order.