"HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI I.T.T.A.No.134 of 2013 Date: 28.06.2013 Between: Commissioner of Income Tax-IV, Hyderabad. .....Appellant AND Ch.Mohan Rao ...Respondent HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI I.T.T.A.No.134 of 2013 JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble the Chief Justice Sri Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta ) Certified copy of the order though has not been annexed to this appeal papers, however, we have seen the true copy of the judgment and order and we propose to dispose of the matter at this stage. We do not require the certified copy any more. This appeal is sought to be admitted on the following suggested questions of law: i. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is correct in law in allowing the additional ground of appeal raised in the cross objections? ii. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is correct in law in annulling the proceedings of the Assessing Officer passed under Section 144 of the Act on the ground that service of notice under Section 148 by affixture is not a proper service of notice and principles of natural justice have been violated? The appeal is preferred against the judgment and order of the learned Tribunal dated 22.08.2008 in relation to the assessment year 1996-97. We have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and gone through the impugned judgment and order. It appears from the impugned order, the following short fact: The Revenue wanted to reopen the assessment and sought for service of notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act. The notice was purported to have been served on the assessee by affixture. The learned Tribunal held that service of notice under Section 148 of the Act by way of affixture is not a proper service of notice, and without there being any service by ordinary mode, the substituted service should not be allowed. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the service of notice is a valid one by virtue of Section 292BB of the Income Tax Act. The learned Tribunal has considered the aforesaid provision of Section 292BB of the Act and held, in our view, correctly that the said provision is applicable in relation to the original assessment. When the assessee appeared, on receipt of notice, it is not applicable in the case of service of initial notice. We are in agreement with the learned Tribunal that the mode of service by way of affixture in this case, at the first instance, was not justified. As such the proceedings drawn up under Section 148 of the Act is without serving any notice or an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Therefore, we are not inclined to interfere with the judgment and order of the learned Tribunal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall also stand closed. No order as to costs. ___________________ K.J. SENGUPTA, CJ _______________ G.ROHINI, J 28.6.2013 Gsn. "
Mehul