RAJDHANI REALCON PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI V. ITO, WARD- 21(1), NEW DELHI

ITA 1146/DEL/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 115 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4184 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-03-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 16-02-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S L ANURAGI
• Assessee Lawyers: RAKESH JAIN
• Keywords: Period of limitation; Reassessment proceedings
• Section: 271(1)(c); 142(1); 143(1); 292BB; 274; 68; 148; 144

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : SMC : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.1146/DEL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09 RAJDHANI REALCON PVT. LTD., 2612/13, 2 ND FLOOR, NAYA BAZAR, NEW DELHI. PAN: AADRC3963P VS. ITO, WARD-21(1), NEW DELHI. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI RAKESH JAIN, ADVOCATE & SHRI GURJEET SINGH, CA REVENUE BY : SHRI S.L. ANURAGI, SR.DR DATE OF HEARING : 20.02.2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 12.03.2019 ORDER THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAI NST THE ORDER DATED 26 TH DECEMBER, 2017 OF THE CIT(A)-7, NEW DELHI FOR ASSES SMENT YEAR 2008-09. 2. FACTS OF THE CASE, IN BRIEF, ARE THAT THE ASSESS EE IS A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY AND FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 27 TH SEPTEMBER 2008 DECLARING A LOSS OF RS.18,030/-. TH E RETURN WAS PROCESSED U/S 143(1) OF THE ACT. SUBSEQU ENTLY, INFORMATION WAS RECEIVED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX, INVE STIGATION, NEW DELHI THAT DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OPERATION ON SURENDER KUMAR JA IN AND SHRI VIRENDER KUMAR JAIN IT WAS NOTICED THAT THEY HAD GIVEN ACCOMMODATION EN TRIES TO THE TUNE OF RS.12,50,000/- ITA NO.1146/DEL/2018 2 TO THE ASSESSEE COMPANY THROUGH HIS COMPANY M/S SHA LINI HOLDINGS LTD., FLOATED BY THEM. SIMILARLY, AN AMOUNT OF RS.7 LAKHS WAS RECEI VED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING AY 2009-10. THE AO THEREAFTER ISSUED NOTICE U/S 148 A FTER RECORDING REASONS. THE NOTICE WAS DULY SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE AS MENTIONED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. HOWEVER, NONE APPEARED NOR ANY APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT WAS FI LED. SUBSEQUENTLY, NOTICE U/S 142(1) WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE AT THE LAST KNOWN ADDRESS OF THE COMPANY ON 11.01.2016 FIXING THE HEARING ON 19 TH JANUARY, 2016. AGAIN, THERE WAS NO COMPLIANCE AS NONE APPEARED NOR ANY REPLY WAS FILED. THEREFOR E, SHOW CAUSE NOTICE U/S 271(1)(B) WAS ISSUED ON 5 TH FEBRUARY, 2015L FIXING THE CASE FOR HEARING ON 12 TH FEBRUARY, 2015. ON THAT DATE ALSO NONE APPEARED. AGAIN, THE AO ISS UED A SHOW CAUSE NOTICE ON 8 TH MARCH, 2016 FIXING THE DATE OF HEARING FOR 14 TH MARCH, 2016. AGAIN, THERE WAS NO COMPLIANCE. THE AO, THEREFORE, COMPLETED THE ASSES SMENT U/S 144 OF THE ACT AND MADE ADDITION OF RS.12,50,000/- TO THE TOTAL INCOME U/S 68 OF THE ACT. 3. BEFORE THE CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE APART FROM CHALL ENGING THE ADDITION ON MERIT TOOK AN ADDITIONAL GROUND CHALLENGING THE VALIDITY OF REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WHICH THE LD. CIT(A) FORWARDED TO THE AO FOR HIS COMMENTS . THE AO FURNISHED A REPORT VIDE LETTER DATED 16.11.2017 WHICH HAS BEEN REPRODUCED B Y THE CIT(A) AND WHICH READS AS UNDER:- KINDLY REFER TO YOUR OFFICE LETTER NO.F.NO.CIT(A )-7/2017-18/92 DATED 21.07.2017 ON THE ABOVE MENTIONED SUBJECT. 2. IN THIS REGARD, THE FACTUAL REPORT SOUGHT BY YOU VIDE ABOVE REFERRED LETTER IS AS UNDER: ITA NO.1146/DEL/2018 3 1) NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 WAS ISSUED ON 18.03.2015 TO THE ASSESSES AT THE ADDRESS: GF-8, ANTARIKSH BHAVAN, 22, K G MARG, CONNAUGHT PLACE, NEW DELHI WHICH IS THE ADDRESS AVA ILABLE AS PER PAN DATABASE. NOTICE U/S 148, DATED 19/03/2015 WAS ISSU ED AGAIN AT THE ABOVE- MENTIONED ADDRESS. THERE IS NO INFORMATION ON RECOR D FOR RECEIVING BACK OF THE AFORE-SAID NOTICE UNSERVED. FURTHER THE NOTICE AS M ENTIONED BEFORE WAS ISSUED WELL BEFORE THE LIMITATION DATE TO ISSUE NOTICE U/S 148, I.E., 31/03/2015. THEREFORE, SINCE THE SAID NOTICE WAS NOT RETURNED UNSERVED, IT MAY BE ASSUMED TO BE A VALID SERVICE. COPY OF SNAPSHOT OF PAN IS ENCL OSED. 2) NOTICE U/S 142(1) OF THE I. T. ACT, 1961 DATED 11 .01.2016 CALLING FOR INFORMATION/DOCUMENTS WAS ISSUED AT THE SAME ADDRES S AS MENTIONED ABOVE, I.E. GF-8, ANTARIKSH BHAVAN, 22, K G MARG, CONNAUGHT PLA CE, NEW DELHI. THIS NOTICE WAS ALSO NOT RETURNED BACK. 3) INSPECTOR WAS DEPUTED TO SERVE THE NOTICE AT THE AD DRESS: GF-8, ANTARIKSH BHAVAN, 22, K G MARG, CONNAUGHT PLACE, NEW DELHI AN D SUBMITTED IN HIS REPORT THAT NO SUCH COMPANY EXISTS ON SAID PREMISES . 4) NOTICE U/S 142(1) DATED 08/03/2016 WAS ISSUED GIVIN G THE ASSESSES A FINAL OPPORTUNITY TO FILE RETURN IN RESPONSE TO NOT ICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT AND WAS SHOWCAUSED AS UNDER: 1. WHY ADDITION U/S 68 BE NOT MADE FOR THE SHARE A PPLICATION MONEY OF RS. 12,50,000/- RECEIVED DURING THE YEAR FROM M/S SHALI NI HOLDINGS LTD. AS YOU HAVE FAILED TO PROVE THE ONUS U/S 68 OF THE ACT I.E . CONFIRMATION, ETC. TO PROVE THE IDENTITY, CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF T HE TRANSACTIONS.' THE CASE WAS FIXED FOR HEARING ON 14.03.2016 AND THIS NOTICE WAS ISSUED AT THE SAME ADDRESS AS MENTIONED ABOVE. 5) ON NON-COMPLIANCE WITH THE ABOVE NOTICE, ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S 147/144 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 WAS PASSED ON 16/03/2016 WITH THE ADDITION OF RS.12,50,000/- U/S 68 OF THE ACT. PENALTY PROCEEDIN GS U/S 271(1)(C) AND 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT WERE ALSO INITIATED. NOTICE U/ S 274 READ WITH SECTION 271 OF THE I. T. ACT, 1961, DATED: 16.03.2016 WAS ISSUED AT THE ADDRESS: GF-8, ANTARIKSH BHAVAN, 22, K G MARG, CONNAUGHT PLACE, NEW DELHI. 6) THE ASSESSMENT ORDER SENT THROUGH SPEED POST VIDE A CKNOWLEDGEMENT NO. ED043182756IN AT THE ADDRESS: GF-8, ANTARIKSH BHAVA N, 22, K G MARG ,, CONNAUGHT PLACE, NEW DELHI WAS RECEIVED BACK UNSERV ED.' 4. THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS REJOINDER TO THE REMAND R EPORT. AFTER CONSIDERING THE REMAND REPORT OF THE AO AND REJOINDER OF THE ASSESS EE TO SUCH REMAND REPORT, THE ITA NO.1146/DEL/2018 4 LD.CIT(A) UPHELD THE VALIDITY OF THE REASSESSMENT P ROCEEDINGS. SO FAR AS THE MERIT OF THE CASE IS CONCERNED, HE ALSO UPHELD THE ACTION OF THE AO BY OBSERVING THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO SUBSTANTIATE WITH EVIDENCE TO TH E SATISFACTION OF THE AO REGARDING THE IDENTITY AND CREDIT WORTHINESS OF THE INVESTOR AND THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION. 4.1 AGGRIEVED WITH SUCH ORDER OF THE CIT(A), THE AS SESSEE IS IN APPEAL BY RAISING THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- 1. THAT THE LD CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING THE ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S 148 AT OLD ADDRESS AS SERVICE OF NOTICE AND A V ALID NOTICE. 2. THAT THE LD CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING ADDITION OF RS.12,50,000/- U/S 68 PARTICULARLY WHEN ALL THE NEC ESSARY EVIDENCES HAVE BEEN ADDUCED. 3. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER OR MODIFY ANY OF THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL TILL THE DATE OF HEARING/DISPOSAL OF THE APPEAL. 5. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, AT THE OUTSET, SU BMITTED THAT NOTICE U/S 148 WAS ISSUED ON 18 TH MARCH, 2015 TO THE ASSESSEE AT THE ADDRESS GF-8, A NTARIKSH BHAVAN, 22, K G MARG, CONNAUGHT PLACE, NEW DELHI. ANOTHER NOTICE U /S 148 DATED 19 TH MARCH, 2015 WAS ISSUED AGAIN AT THE ABOVE MENTIONED ADDRESS. HE SUBMITTED THAT WHEN THE FIRST NOTICE U/S 148 ISSUED ON 18 TH MARCH, 2015 WAS EXISTING, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS AGAIN, ISSUED ANOTHER NOTICE ON 19 TH MARCH, 2015 AT THE SAME ADDRESS. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ALREADY CHANGED HIS ADDRESS AND THE RETURNS FOR THE SUBSEQUENT YEARS WERE FILED AT THE NEW ADDRESS AT 2 612/13, 2 ND FLOOR, NAYA BAZAR, NEW DELHI 110 006. REFERRING TO PAGE 34 TO 40 OF THE PAPER BOOK, HE DREW THE ATTENTION OF THE BENCH TO THE COPY OF THE INCOME-TAX RETURNS FILED FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2011-12 ITA NO.1146/DEL/2018 5 TO 2016-17. THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR ASSESSMENT YE AR 2010-11 WAS FILED ON 14 TH SEPTEMBER, 2010, RETURN FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 WAS FILED ON 30 TH AUGUST, 2011, RETURN FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13 WAS FILED ON 18 TH SEPTEMBER, 2012, RETURN FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14 WAS FILED ON 16 TH JANUARY, 2014, RETURN FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15 WAS FILED ON 22 ND AUGUST, 2014, RETURN FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2015-16 W AS FILED ON 10 TH SEPTEMBER, 2015 AND FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2016-17, I T WAS FILED ON 8 TH JULY, 2016 AT THE ABOVE ADDRESS. REFERRING TO THE DECISIO N OF THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. CHETAN GUPTA, ITA NO.72 OF 2014, JUDGEMENT DATED 15 TH SEPTEMBER, 2015 , HE DREW THE ATTENTION OF THE BENCH TO PARA 18 OF THE ORDER WHERE THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CAS E OF CIT VS. HOTLINE INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD., 296 ITR 333 (DEL) AND THAT OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE O F ACIT VS. HOTEL BLUE MOON, REPORTED IN 321 ITR 362 ( SC) HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED AND IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT ON ACCOUNT OF ABSENCE OF VALID S ERVICE OF NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT ON THE ASSESSEE, THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS FOR A SSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02 WERE HELD TO BE BAD IN LAW. REFERRING TO PARA 34 OF THE SAID ORDER, HE DREW THE ATTENTION OF THE BENCH TO THE FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT:- ONUS ON REVENUE TO PROVE SERVICE OF NOTICE 34. THERE IS SUFFICIENT JUDICIAL AUTHORITY FOR THE PROPOSITION THAT THE BURDEN OF SHOWING THAT SERVICE OF NOTICED HAS BEEN EFFECTED O N THE ASSESSEE OR HIS DULY AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE IS ON THE REVENUE. THESE INCLUDE FATECHAND AGARWAL V. COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH-TAX [1974] 97 ITR 701 (ORI) AND VENKAT NAICKEN TRUST V. ITO [1999] 107 TAXMAN 391 (MAD). IN CIT V. THAYABALLI MULLA JEEVAJI KAPASI (1967) 66 ITR 147 (SC), THE RESPONDENT TO WHOM THE NOTICE WAS DIRECTED WAS NOT IN TOWN. THE ONLY INFORMATION WHICH THE PRO CESS SERVER HAD WAS THAT THE RESPONDENT WAS EITHER IN BOMBAY OR CEYLON. THEREAFT ER, THE PROCESS SERVER AFFIXED THE NOTICE ON THE BUSINESS PREMISES OF THE RESPONDENT. THE SUPREME ITA NO.1146/DEL/2018 6 COURT AFFIRMED THE ESSENTIAL PRINCIPLE THAT 'IF NO NOTICE WAS SERVED WITHIN THE PERIOD, THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER WAS INCOMPETENT TO C OMMENCE PROCEEDINGS FOR REASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 34 OF 1922 ACT.' IT WAS FURTHER HELD THAT 'SERVICE OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 34 (1) (A) WITHIN THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION BEING A CO NDITION PRECEDENT TO THE EXISTENCE OF JURISDICTION, IF THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER WAS UNABLE TO PROVE THAT THE NOTICE WAS DULY SERVED UPON THE RESP ONDENT WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED PERIOD, ANY RETURN FILED BY THE RESPONDENT AFTER TH E EXPIRY OF THE PERIOD OF EIGHT YEARS WILL NOT INVEST THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER WITH A UTHORITY TO REASSESS THE INCOME OF THE RESPONDENT PURSUANT TO SUCH RETURN.' ON THE FACTS OF THAT CASE IT WAS HELD THAT THE REVENUE HAD SUFFICIENTLY DISCHARGED THE ON US BY PRODUCING THE AFFIDAVIT OF THE PROCESS SERVER. 5.1 THEREAFTER, HE DREW THE ATTENTION OF THE BENCH TO THE CONCLUSION OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT WHICH READS AS UNDER:- 37. NO ATTEMPT APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN MADE BY THE RE VENUE TO SERVE THE ASSESSEE AT THE ADDRESS PROVIDED BY HIM I.E. 'C/O JAGAT THEA TRE, SECTOR 17, CHANDIGARH'. ALL THE NOTICES WERE ADDRESSED TO HIM AT THE ADDRES S 'C/O KIRAN CINEMA, CHANDIGARH' WHICH WAS IN SECTOR-22. THEREFORE, THIS IS NOT A CASE WHERE AN ATTEMPT WAS MADE BY THE REVENUE TO SERVE THE ASSESS EE AT HIS KNOWN ADDRESS, AND UPON NOT FINDING HIM THERE THE REVENUE LEARNT O F THE ADDRESS WHERE HE WOULD BE FOUND. MERELY BECAUSE OTHER NOTICES SENT TO THE 'ASSESSEE GROUP' WERE RECEIVED BY THE EMPLOYEES OF KIRAN CINEMA IT DOES NOT AUTOMA TICALLY LEAD TO THE INFERENCE THAT THE ASSESSEE'S PLACE OF BUSINESS WAS ALSO KIRA N CINEMA. IN ANY EVENT, THERE COULD NOT BE AN INFERENCE THAT MR. VED PRAKASH WAS DULY EMPOWERED BY THE ASSESSEE TO RECEIVE NOTICES ON HIS BEHALF. IN THE V ERY FIRST NOTICE DATED 28TH MARCH 2008 THE ENDORSEMENT MADE BY MR. VED PRAKASH SHOWS HIM DESCRIBING HIMSELF AS 'ACCOUNTANT, KIRAN CINEMA, SECTOR-22, CH ANDIGARH' AND NOTHING MORE. 6. HE ACCORDINGLY SUBMITTED THAT THE DECISION OF THE H ON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CHETAN GUPTA CITED (SUPRA) IS FULLY APP LICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE SINCE THERE WAS NO SERVICE OF NOTICE U/S 148 O F THE ACT. HE ACCORDINGLY SUBMITTED THAT THE LD.CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN C ONFIRMING THE ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S 148 AT THE OLD ADDRESS AS SERVICE OF VALID NOTICE. ITA NO.1146/DEL/2018 7 7. SO FAR AS THE MERIT OF THE CASE IS CONCERNED, HE SU BMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE BY FILING VARIOUS DOCUMENTS HAS DISCHARGED THE ONUS CA ST ON IT BY PROVING THE IDENTITY AND CREDIT WORTHINESS OF THE INVESTOR AND THE GENUINENE SS OF THE TRANSACTION. THEREFORE, NO ADDITION U/S 68 IS CALLED FOR. REFERRING TO THE CO PY OF FORM NO.18 FILED WITH THE REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES, HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ADDRE SS BEARING IN THE DATA BASE OF THE MINISTRY OF CORPORATE AFFAIRS SHOWS THAT THE ADDRES S HAS BEEN CHANGED W.E.F. 30.11.2009 TO 2612/13, 2 ND FLOOR, NAYA BAZAR, NEW DELHI 110 006. 8. THE LD. DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, HEAVILY RELIED ON TH E ORDER OF THE CIT(A). HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT INTIMATED THE C HANGE OF ADDRESS AND THE PAN DATABASE SHOWS THE OLD ADDRESS. THEREFORE, THE ASS ESSING OFFICER HAD NO OCCASION TO KNOW ABOUT THE NEW ADDRESS FOR WHICH THE NOTICE WAS SERVED BY AFFIXTURE. IN ANY CASE, THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 292BB WILL BE APPLICABLE AND WILL COME TO THE RESCUE OF THE DEPARTMENT AND THE ASSESSEE CANNOT GET AWAY ON THIS TECHNICALITY OF NON-SERVICE OF NOTICE U/S 148. HE ACCORDINGLY SUBMITTED THAT THE R EASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS CANNOT BE HELD AS ILLEGAL. SO FAR AS THE MERIT OF THE CASE I S CONCERNED, HE RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED T O DISCHARGE THE ONUS CAST ON IT BY PROVING THE IDENTITY AND CREDIT WORTHINESS OF THE I NVESTOR AND THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION. THEREFORE, THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) BE ING IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAW HAS TO BE UPHELD. 9. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL ARGUMENTS MADE BY BOTH THE SIDES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. I HAVE ALSO CONSIDERED THE VAR IOUS DECISIONS CITED BEFORE ME. I ITA NO.1146/DEL/2018 8 FIND THE AO, IN THE INSTANT CASE, ISSUED THE NOTIC E U/S 148 OF THE ACT AT THE OLD ADDRESS AT GF-8, ANTARIKSH BHAVAN, 22, K G MARG, CONNAUGHT PLACE, NEW DELHI WHICH IS AVAILABLE AS PER PAN DATABASE. THE NOTICE WAS ISSU ED ON 18 TH MARCH, 2015. A PERUSAL OF THE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF THE RETURN FI LED FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 TO 2014-15 SHOWS THAT THE RETURNS FOR THESE YEARS HAVE BEEN FILED WITH THE ADDRESS AT 2612/13, 2 ND FLOOR, NAYA BAZAR, NEW DELHI 110 006. MERELY BE CAUSE THE NOTICE ISSUED AT THE OLD ADDRESS HAS NOT BEEN RETURNED UNS ERVED IT MAY BE PRESUMED TO BE A VALID SERVICE AS MENTIONED BY THE AO IN THE REMAND REPORT CANNOT BE ACCEPTED. THE LD. DR ALSO FAIRLY CONCEDED THAT THE NOTICE WAS SER VED BY AFFIXTURE AND THERE IS NO PROOF ON RECORD THAT THE NOTICE HAS BEEN SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE. SINCE THE NOTICE U/S 148 IN THE INSTANT CASE HAS NOT BEEN SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE, THE QUESTION THAT ARISES IS AS TO WHETHER THE ASSESSMENT FRAMED U/S 147/144 OF THE ACT CAN BE CONSTRUED AS A VALID ASSESSMENT IN ABSENCE OF SERVICE OF NOTICE U/S 148. AN IDENTICAL ISSUE HAD COME UP BEFORE THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. CHETAN GUPTA CITED (SUPRA) AND THE HONBLE HIGH COURT QUASHED THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ON THE GROUND THAT SUCH PROCEEDINGS FINALISED BY THE AO WITHOUT EFFECT ING PROPER SERVICE OF NOTICE ON THE ASSESSEE U/S 148(1) OF THE ACT ARE INVALID AND LIAB LE TO BE QUASHED. THE RELEVANT OBSERVATION OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT HAS ALREADY B EEN REPRODUCED IN THE PRECEDING PARAGRAPHS WHILE RECORDING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE L D. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AND, THEREFORE, I AM NOT REPEATING THE SAME. SINCE IT I S AN ADMITTED FACT THAT THE NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE IT ACT HAS NOT BEEN SERVED ON THE ASSESS EE WHICH IS DISCERNIBLE FROM THE REMAND REPORT OF THE AO AS REPRODUCED IN THE BODY O F THIS ORDER, THEREFORE, ITA NO.1146/DEL/2018 9 RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CHETAN GUPTA (SUPRA), I HOLD THAT THE REASSESSMENT ORDER FRAMED BY THE AO WITHOUT SERVING THE NOTICE U/S 148 IS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN LA W. ACCORDINGLY, THE SAME IS QUASHED. SINCE THE ASSESSEE SUCCEEDS ON THIS LEGAL GROUND, T HE GROUND ON MERIT IS NOT BEING DECIDED BEING ACADEMIC IN NATURE. 10. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS A LLOWED. THE DECISION WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 12.03.2019. SD/- ( R.K. PANDA) ACCOUNTANT MEMFBE R DATED: 12 TH MARCH, 2019 DK COPY FORWARDED TO 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR ASSTT. REGISTRAR, ITAT, NEW DELHI