Mohd. Khalid Khan, Hyderabad V. ITO, Hyderabad

CO 33/HYD/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 122 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5114 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Cross Objection
• Pronouncement Date: 30-09-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2002-2003
• Appeal Filed On: 03-08-2010
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A V RAGHURAM
• Assessee Lawyers: K V N CHARYA
• Section: 142(1); 147; 148; 144

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH A , HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI G.C. GUPTA, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.869/HYD/2010 ASSESSMENT 2002-03 ITO WARD NO.6(1), HYDERABAD VS SHRI MOHD. KHALID KHAN, HYDERABAD (PAN NIL) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) CO NO.33/HYD/2010 ARISING OUT OF ITA NO.869/HYD/2010 ASSESSMENT 2002-03 SHRI MOHD. KHALID KHAN, HYDERABAD (PAN NIL) VS ITO WARD NO.6(1), HYDERABAD (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI K.V.N. CHARYA, DR RESPONDENT BY : SHRI A.V. RAGHURAM O R D E R PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THE APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE REVENUE AND THE CRO SS OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDE RS PASSED BY THE CIT(A) THIRUPATHI DATED 12.3.2010 AND PERTAINS TO THE ASSE SSMENT YEAR 2002-03. 2. THE MAIN GRIEVANCE OF THE DEPARTMENT IS WITH REGARD TO ALLOWING THE RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE ON TECHNICAL GR OUNDS TREATING THE ISSUE OF NOTICE BEYOND 31.3.2005 TO AN AGENT OF NRI IS IL LEGAL AND INVALID U/S 149(3) OF THE IT ACT. 3. THE ASSESSEES GRIEVANCE IS WITH REGARD TO TH E FACT THAT THE SERVICE OF NOTICE U/S 148 BY AFFIXTURE IS NOT MADE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ITA NO.869 & CO.33 OF 2010 MOHD. KHALID KHAN, HYDERABAD 2 2 PROVISIONS OF LAW, THEREBY THE ASSESSMENT IS BAD IN LAW IN VIEW OF SERVICE OF NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE IT ACT. 4. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSM ENT WAS REOPENED U/S 147 TO COMPUTE AND ASSESS THE CAPITAL GAINS ON SALE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM THE SALE OF HIS INHER ITED PROPERTY SITUATED AT 6-3-581, KHAIRATABAD, HYDERABAD. AFTER INITIATING PROCEEDINGS U/S 147, A NOTICE U/S 148 WAS SERVED BY AFFIXTURE ON THE LAST KNOWN ADDRESS. I.E., 6- 3-581, BISHIRA MANZIL, KHAIRATABAD, HYDERABAD. SUB SEQUENTLY, NOTICES U/S 142(1) WAS ALSO SERVED BY THE AFFIXTURE AT THE SAME ADDRESS. THERE WAS NO COMPLIANCE FOR THE NOTICE ISSUED FIXING THE DATE OF HEARING ON 2.11.2007, 15.11.2007 AND 26.11.2007. AFTER ENQUIR Y WITH THE BANK AUTHORITIES IT IS ASCERTAINED THAT SHRI MOHD. KHALI D KHAN IS RESIDING AT NO. 8-2-334/11, ROAD NO.3, BANJARA HILLS, HYDERABAD AN D AGAIN NOTICE U/S 142(1) WAS SERVED AT THIS ADDRESS ON 15.11.2007 AND THE CASE WAS POSTED FOR HEARING ON 26.11.2007 BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IN RESPONSE TO THIS NOTICE, SHRI M.M. SALIM SIDDIQUI, ITP APPEARED AND FILED A LETTER STATING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS LEFT FOR HAJ PILGRIMAGE AND R EQUESTED TO POST THE CASE FOR HEARING IN THE MONTH OF JANUARY, 2008. LATER, THE ASSESSMENT HAS BEEN FINALIZED U/S 144 WORKING OUT THE CAPITAL GAIN S AND RAISED THE DEMAND. WHILE WORKING OUT THE COMPUTATION, THE ASS ESSING OFFICER HAS ALSO DISALLOWED PAYMENTS MADE BY THE ERSTWHILE BUYE R TO SISTERS AND BROKERAGE. 5. BEFORE THE CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE RAISED ADDITIO NAL GROUNDS THAT THE ASSESSMENT IS INVALID AS PER SECTION 149(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT SINCE THE ASSESSEE IS A NON RESIDENT AND PROVISIONS OF SE CTION 163(2) WERE NOT FOLLOWED WHILE MAKING ASSESSMENT. IN THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE CIT(A), THE CIT(A) CALLED FOR THE REMAND REPORT FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER SUBMITTED THAT THE SALE-CUM-GPA ITA NO.869 & CO.33 OF 2010 MOHD. KHALID KHAN, HYDERABAD 3 3 DOCUMENT REGISTERED AS DOCUMENT NO.1469/01 ON 25.7. 2001 IS SIGNED BY SHRI MOHD. KHALID KHAN ONLY BUT NOT BY ANY GPA AS P LEADED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE MONIES WERE ALSO DEPOSITED INTO HIS BANK ACCOUNT AT ANDHRA BANK, KACHEGUDA BRANCH, HYDERABAD. REGARDIN G PASSPORT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER PLEADED THAT THE PASSPORT COPIES WERE NOT COMPLETED BUT EXCERPTS OF THE PASSPORT WERE ONLY FURNISHED AND TH E ASSESSING OFFICER STATED THAT IT SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED. THE ASSE SSING OFFICER ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE NOTICE U/S 147 AND LATER U/S 142 (1) WERE SERVED BY AFFIXTURE AT THE LAST KNOWN ADDRESS IN KHAIRATABAD AND LATER THE ADDRESS OF THE ASSESSEE WAS TRACED AND NOTICES WERE AGAIN SERV ED THERE. HE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEES AUTHORISED REPRESENTA TIVE SHRI M.M. SALIM SIDDIQUE, ITP, APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE B Y FILING AUTHORITY LETTER AND PRAYED FOR ADJOURNMENT AS THE ASSESSEE WAS LEAV ING FOR HAJ PILGRIMAGE. AS THERE WAS NO RESPONSE TO THE ADJOUR NED DATE ON 4.12.2007, A SHOW CAUSE NOTICE WAS SERVED WHICH WAS ALSO UNANS WERED. HENCE THE CIT(A) OF THE OPINION THAT REOPENING THE ASSESSMENT WAS ISSUED IN VIOLATION OF SEC.149(3) OF THE ACT. THIS SECTION LAYS DOWN T HAT NO NOTICE U/S 148 IS TO BE SERVED ON THE AGENT OF A NON RESIDENT AFTER T HE EXPIRY OF PERIOD OF 2 YEARS FROM THE END OF THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR. HE OBSERVED THAT IN THIS CASE, THE ASSESSMENT YEAR EXPIRES ON 31.3.2003 AND THE LIMITATION U/S 149(3) EXPIRES ON 31.3.2005, SINCE THE ASSESSEE BEI NG A NON RESIDENT, THE TIME LIMIT U/S 149(3) IS APPLICABLE AND ISSUE OF NO TICE IS BARRED BY LIMITATION, ACCORDINGLY BY FOLLOWING THE PROVISION S OF SECTION 149(3), THE ISSUE OF NOTICE BEYOND 31.3.2005 IS HELD AS ILLEGAL AND INVALID. THUS, THE ASSESSMENT IS ANNULLED. AGAINST THIS THE REVENUE I S IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 6. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITT ED THAT THE PROCEEDINGS OF REOPENING WERE INITIATED BY SERVING A NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE IT ACT BY AN AFFIXTURE ON THE LAST KNOWN ADDRESS I. E. 6-3-581, KHAIRATABAD, HYDERABAD BY AN INSPECTOR ATTACHED TO THE OFFICE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ITA NO.869 & CO.33 OF 2010 MOHD. KHALID KHAN, HYDERABAD 4 4 AS THERE WAS NO COMPLIANCE FROM THE ASSESSEE, A NOT ICE U/S 142(1) WAS ISSUED CALLING FOR INFORMATION. THERE WAS AN ENQUI RY WITH MR. MOHAMMAD WAHEED KHAN, BROTHER OF THE ASSESSEE TO KNOW THE WH EREABOUTS OF THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, HIS BROTHER EXPRESSED HIS INABI LITY TO FURNISH THE CONTACT NUMBER AND ADDRESS OF THE ASSESSEE. BEING SO, ONCE AGAIN NOTICE U/S 142(1), ON 3.9.2007 WAS SERVED BY AFFIXTURE TO WHICH THE CASE WAS POSTED FOR HEARING ON 20.9.2007 WAS ISSUED AND THE SAME WAS SERVED BY AN AFFIXTURE. FOR THIS NOTICE ALSO, THERE WAS NO C OMPLIANCE FROM THE ASSESSEE. HENCE, THE CASE WAS RE-FIXED ONCE AGAIN ON 2.11.2007, 5.11.2007 AND 26.11.2007. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HA S ALSO CONDUCTED AN ENQUIRY WITH THE BANK AUTHORITIES AND ASCERTAINED T HAT SHRI MOHD. KHALID KHAN IS RESIDING AT DOOR NO.8-2-334/11, ROAD NO.3, BANJARA HILLS, HYDERABAD. AGAIN A NOTICE U/S 142(1) WAS SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE ON 15.11.2007 POSTING THE CASE FOR HEARING ON 26.11.20 07. IN RESPONSE TO THIS NOTICE, SHRI M.M. SALIM SIDDIQUE, ITP HAS APPE ARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE STATING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS LEFT FOR HAJ PILGRIMAGE AND REQUESTED TO POST THE CASE FOR HEARING IN JANUARY, 2008. AGAINST THIS, THE CASE WAS POSTED FOR HEARING ON 7.12.2007 WHICH WAS SERVED ON THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE. ONCE A GAIN, ADJOURNMENT LETTER WAS FILED STATING THAT THE ASSESSEE WILL BE RETURNING FROM THE HAJ PILGRIMAGE ONLY ON 26.11.2007 AND PRAYED TO POST TH E CASE ON 27.12.2007. AGAINST THIS REQUEST, THE CASE WAS POSTED ON 27.12. 2007. BUT NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE DATE OF H EARING. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSE SSING OFFICER HAVING NO OPTION, COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT ON 28.12.2007 FUR THER, HE SUBMITTED THAT IN CASE OF NRI THE ASSESSMENT CAN BE FRAMED U/ S 160 AND 163 OF THE IT ACT. U/S 166 OF THE IT ACT, THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER HAS THE JURISDICTION EITHER TO ASSESS NON RESIDENT DIRECTLY OR ITS AGENT . ITA NO.869 & CO.33 OF 2010 MOHD. KHALID KHAN, HYDERABAD 5 5 7. ACCORDING TO LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATI VE, IN THIS CASE A NOTICE U/S 148 WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE DIRECTL Y AND IT IS NOT AN ASSESSMENT OF THE AGENT AND THERE IS NO QUESTION OF VIOLATION OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 149(3) OF THE ACT. BEING SO, THE CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSMENT AS BAD IN LAW ON THE REASON THA T THE TIME LIMIT U/S 149(3) IS BARRED BY LIMITATION. HE SUBMITTED THAT EVEN THOUGH THE REMEDY AGAINST THE AGENT BECAME BARRED ON THE LAPSE OF TWO YEARS BY REASONS OF SECTION 149(3), IT DID NOT IN ANY WAY PREVENT THE A SSESSING OFFICER BY INITIATING PROCEEDINGS FOR REASSESSMENT AGAINST THE ASSESSEE DIRECTLY. HE RELIED ON THE FOLLOWING JUDGEMENTS: 1. CIT VS. CLAGGETT BRACHI & CO., LTD. (100 ITR 46 ) (AP) 2. BARIUM CHEMICALS LTD. VS. ITO (100 ITR 637) (AP ) 8. FURTHER, HE DREW OUR ATTENTION TO THE JUDGEME NT OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CLAGETT BRACH I CO. LTD. VS. CIT ((177 ITR 409) FOR THE SAME PROPOSITION. HE ALSO DREW OUR ATTENTION TO THE PROVISIONS OF SEC TION 160 & 166 AND ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEES IS , THAT SHRI SALIM SIDDIQUE, ITP IS THE COUNSEL OF HIS BROTHER MD. MA JID KHAN AND NOT OF THE ASSESSEE, WHICH IS NOT CORRECT. HE FILED A COPY OF AFFIDAVIT DATED 9.3.2010 AND DREW OUR ATTENTION TO THE PARA 3 OF THE AFFIDA VIT: 3. COMING TO REPRESENTATIONS MADE BY THE COUNSEL M R. S. SIDDIQUE REPRESENTING AND STATING THAT I WAS GOING ON A PILG RIMAGE, I SUBMIT THAT HE WAS HANDLING THE MATTER RELATING TO MY BROT HER MR. WAHEED. MYSELF BEING STRANGER I ALSO ENTRUSTED THE MATTER T O HIM. MR. WAHEED WAS GOING ON PILGRIMAGE THAT TIME. WHEN HE WROTE L IKE THAT FOR HIM, HE REPEATED THE SAME FOR ME ALSO. IT IS EVIDENT FR OM THE LETTERS FILED IN THE CASE OF MR. WAHEED THE QUESTION OF ME GOING TO JEDDAH DOES NOT ARISE AS I STAY IN JEDDAH. AFTER REQUESTING TH E MATTER TO HIM, HE HAS NOT MADE ANY ENQUIRIES WITH ME ABOUT FACTS AND HENCE THE QUESTION OF STATING BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER TH AT I AM A NON RESIDENT DID NOT ARISE. HE HAS FURTHER NOT PREPAR ED ANY RETURN OF ITA NO.869 & CO.33 OF 2010 MOHD. KHALID KHAN, HYDERABAD 6 6 INCOME BUT ON HIS OWN FILED A COMPUTATION STATEMENT SIMILAR TO THAT OF MY BROTHER MR. WAHEED. COPIES OF THE SAME ARE SUBMITTED HEREWITH. 9. ACCORDING TO LEARNED DEPARTMENT REPRESENTATIVE , THE ABOVE CONTENTS OF THE AFFIDAVIT IS CONTRARY TO THE FACT A ND IS A SELF SERVING DOCUMENT. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN A LETTER OF AUTHORITY TO MR. SALIM SIDDIQUE. MR. SALIM SIDDIQUE AND ALSO FILED A COPY OF THE LETTER OF AUTHORITY GIVEN TO HIM BY THE ASSESSEE WH ICH IS PLACED ON RECORD. HE ALSO DREW OUR ATTENTION TO THE COPIES OF VARIOUS NOTICE U/S 148 AND 142(1) SERVED WITH AFFIXTURE TO THE ASSESSEE. FINA LLY, HE SUBMITTED THAT EVEN IF THERE IS ANY MISTAKE IN THE SERVICE OF NOTI CE, PROVISIONS OF SEC. 292BB WILL BE TAKEN CARE OF. REGARDING CROSS OBJEC TION RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE, HE SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT(A) HAS NOT DEAL T THE ISSUE RELATING TO ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S 148. AS SUCH, IT DOES NOT SURV IVE. 10. THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT AT ALL STAYING I N INDIAN SINCE THE LAST 15 YEARS AND HE IS A NON RESIDENT AND THE ASSESSING O FFICER SHOULD HAVE RESORTED TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 163 OF THE AC T WHICH IS NOT OPTED AND HENCE THE ASSESSMENT IS INVALID. HE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). FURTHER, HE SUBMITTED THAT SERVICE OF NOTICE BY AFF IXTURE IS INVALID, FOR THIS PURPOSE HE RELIED ON THE FOLLOWING JUDGEMENTS: 1. CIT VS. NAVEEN CHANDER (233 CTR 518) ( P&H HC) 2. KOHLI BROTHERS VS. ITO (132 TTJ 117) (LUCKNOW) 3. ACIT VS. SHER SINGH ALIAS BALSHEAR SINGH (131 TTJ 1) (CHD.) 11. FURTHER, HE DREW OUR ATTENTION TO AN AFFIDAVI T DATED 9.3.2010 MADE BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH WAS PLACED ON RECORD. H E ALSO SUBMITTED THAT SERVICE OF NOTICE U/S 148 IS BAD IN LAW. ITA NO.869 & CO.33 OF 2010 MOHD. KHALID KHAN, HYDERABAD 7 7 12. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED TH E MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND ALSO GONE THROUGH THE VARIO US CASE LAW CITED BY THE RIVAL PARTIES. IN THIS CASE, A NOTICE U/S 148 DATED 14.3.2007 WAS SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE BY AFFIXTURE AT THE LAST KNOWN ADDRESS AT 6-3-581, KHAIRATABAD, HYDERABAD ON 17.3.2007. LATER FROM TH E BANK AUTHORITIES, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ASCERTAINED AND FOUND THA T THE ADDRESS OF THE ASSESSEES RESIDENCE IS AT DOOR NO.8-2-334/11, ROAD NO.3, BANJARA HILLS, HYDERABAD AND A NOTICE U/S 142(1) WAS SERVED ON THI S ADDRESS. THESE NOTICES WERE SERVED TO THE ASSESSEE BY AFFIXTURE. THE ASSESSEE WAS REPRESENTED BY SHRI SALIM SIDDIQUE, ITP AND ON VARI OUS OCCASIONS, ADJOURNMENTS WERE PLEADED AND TAKEN AND FINALLY ON THE DATE OF HEARING ON 27.12.2007, NONE APPEARED AND THE ASSESSMENT ORD ER WAS PASSED ON 28.12.2007 CONSIDERING THE 1/6 TH SHARES IN SALE CONSIDERATION OF PROPERTY SITUATED AT 6-3-581, BASHERA MANZIL, KHAIRATABAD, H YDERABAD AS CONSIDERATION RELATING TO THE ASSESSEE. THE MAIN C ONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEES COUNSEL IS THAT NEITHER NOTICE OF REOPEN ING U/S 148 NOR NOTICE U/S 142(1) WAS SERVED TO THE ASSESSEE. BUT THE FAC T REMAINS THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS REPRESENTED BY SHRI SALIM SIQQIQUE, IT P AND HE HAS FILED DULY AUTHORISED LETTER OF AUTHORITY BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND ON VARIOUS OCCASIONS HE HAS BEEN TAKEN ADJOURNMENTS OF THE CAS E. ADMITTEDLY, THE ABOVE NOTICES WERE ISSUED AND HAVE BEEN ACTED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE BY ENGAGING A CONSULTANT/ITP. THE EVENTS MENTIONED HE REIN ABOVE DO NOT JUSTIFY THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEES COUNSEL. THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN REPRESENTED BY SHRI SALEEM SIDDIQUI, ITP BY FILING HIS LETTER OF AUTHORITY AND TAKEN ADJOURNMENTS ON VARIOUS OCCASIONS. IN OU R OPINION, THE SERVICE OF NOTICE BY AFFIXTURE IS ONE MODE OF SERVING OF NO TICE. BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ASSESSEE HAS NO OBJECTION REGARDING SE RVING OF NOTICE. BY SCRUTINIZING THE FACTS OF THE CASE, IT IS NOTED THA T THE ASSESSEE HAVE NO OBJECTION AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT REGARDING THE V ALIDITY OF THE NOTICE AND ITA NO.869 & CO.33 OF 2010 MOHD. KHALID KHAN, HYDERABAD 8 8 IT SHOULD BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT THAT THE ASSESSEE A CCEPTED THE SERVICE OF NOTICE AS VALID AT THE TIME OF COMPLETION OF ASSESS MENT. THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ABLE TO ESTABLISH THAT HE IS NOT AWARE OF T HE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE COMPLETION OF THE ASSESSMEN T. IN OUR OPINION, THE ISSUE OF NOTICE IS VALID ON THE REASON THAT THE ASS ESSEE HAS AUTHORISED SHRI SALIM SIDDIQUI, ITP TO REPRESENT HIS CASE AND VARIO US ADJOURNMENTS WERE TAKEN. IT MEANS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PARTICIPATED IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND NOT RAISED ANY OBJECTION BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE ASSESSMENT CANNOT BE INVALID ON THIS REASON. A S SUCH, THE VALIDITY OF SERVICE OF NOTICE HAS LOST ITS SIGNIFICANCE WHEN TH E ASSESSEE ACTED UPON THE NOTICE. HENCE, THE ASSESSMENT CANNOT BE SAID TIME BARRED. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE ASSESSMENT WAS MADE IN THE NAME OF THE AS SESSEE HIMSELF AND THERE IS NO QUESTION OF APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 14 9(3) OR 163 OF THE IT ACT. AS RIGHTLY SUBMITTED BY THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL RE PRESENTATIVE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS AN OPTION EITHER TO ASSESS HI MSELF OR ON THE AGENT OF THE ASSESSEE. SEC.166 CLEARLY INDICATES THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS GOT THE JURISDICTION TO EITHER ASSESS NON RESIDENT ASSE SSEE OR AGENT. AS SUCH, THE ASSESSMENT MADE DIRECTLY IN ASSESSEES NAME BY SERVING NOTICE BY AFFIXTURE TO THE LAST KNOWN ADDRESS IS VALID IN LAW .. BEING AFFIXTURE IS PROPER, ON THE REASON THAT THE INDEPENDENT PERSONS AS WITNESS WERE IDENTIFIED THE ASSESSEES ADDRESS AND AFTER CARRYIN G OUT THE DUE PROCEDURE AS PROVIDED IN CPC ORDER V RR 1 TO 30 OF THE CPC, 1908 WAS FOLLOWED, THE ASSESSMENT FRAMED THEREUPON IS VALID ASSESSMENT. THE SAME STANDS CONFIRMED. REGARDING THE ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S 148 B Y AFFIXTURE, AS RIGHTLY POINTED BY THE DR, THIS ISSUE DOES NOT ARISE OUT OF THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), HENCE WE DECLINE TO ENTERTAIN THIS GROUND AND THE C ROSS OBJECTION IS DISMISSED. ITA NO.869 & CO.33 OF 2010 MOHD. KHALID KHAN, HYDERABAD 9 9 13. IN THE RESULT, REVENUE APPEAL IN ITA NO.869/H YD/2010 IS ALLOWED AND THAT OF CROSS OBJECTION BY THE ASSESSEE IN CO.33/HYD/2010 IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT 30.9.2010 SD/- SD/- G.C. GUPTA CHANDRA POOJARI VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED THE 30 TH SEPTEMBER, 2010 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. THE ITO, WARD 6(1), HYDERABAD 2. SRI MOHD. KHALID KHAN, D.NO.8-2-334/11, ROAD NO. 3, BANJARA HILLS, HYDERABAD 3. CIT(A)- THIRUPATHI 4. CIT, HYDERABAD 5. THE D.R., ITAT, HYDERABAD. NP