IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, CHANDIGARH BEFORE MS. DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MS. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NOS. 1265 TO 1268/CHD/2016 A.YS: 2009-10 TO 2012-13 SHRI JOGINDER SINGH NIJJAR, VS. THE ASSTT. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX 2-A, GORWAY ROAD WALSALL, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), WEST MIDLAND, WSI 3BB, CHANDIGAR H. UNITED KINGDOM PAN NO. AIHPN7432J (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI TEJ MOHAN SINGH RESPONDENT BY : MRS. CHANDERKANTA, ADDL. CIT-DR DATE OF HEARING : 22.05.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 08.06.2017 ORDER PER MS. DIVA SINGH,JM IN THESE FOUR APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE PERTAINING TO 200 9-10 TO 2012-13 ASSESSMENT YEARS, CORRECTNESS OF THE CONSOLIDATED ORDER DATED 27.09.2016 OF LD. CIT(A)-43 NEW DELHI IS ASSAILED ON VARIOUS GROUNDS, INCLUDIN G GROUND NO. 3 WHICH READS AS UNDER : THAT NO NOTICE UNDER SECTION 153A, 142(1) OR 143(2 ) OR UNDER ANY OTHER SECTION OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 WAS EVER SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE AND AS SUCH FRAMING OF AN ASSESSMENT WITHOUT MANDATORY SERVICE OF NOTICE IS I LLEGAL, ARBITRARY AND UNJUSTIFIED. 2. IT WAS A COMMON STAND OF THE PARTIES BEFORE THE BEN CH THAT THE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED IN ITA NO. 1262/CHD/2016 & OTHERS WOULD APPLY IPSI DIXIT TO THE PRESENT APPEALS. IT WAS A SUBMISSION OF THE LD. AR THAT HEREIN ALSO THE ASSESSEE HAD OPENED A SAVING BANK ACCOUNT IN PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK, AMRITSAR. THUS, THE ADDRESS 10, OLD JAIL ROAD, AMRITSA R HAS BEEN TAKEN FROM THE SAID ACCOUNT. IT WAS CLARIFIED THAT THE AS SESSEE IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IS THE BROTHER-IN-LAW OF MRS. BALWINDER KAUR NIJJAR . ASSESSEE'S HUSBAND SHRI BHUPINDER SINGH NIJJAR IS THE BROTHER OF T HE ASSESSEE AND THESE THREE PEOPLE HAD OPENED AN ACCOUNT WITH PUNJAB NATIONA L BANK AT AMRITSAR, HOWEVER, NONE OF THEM HAVE EVER RESIDED AT THAT ADDRES S GIVEN AND THIS FACT HAS CONSISTENTLY BEEN BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE CIT (A). ASSESSMENT ORDER IS PASSED U/S 144 OF THE ACT. THE FACT OF CLAIMED LITIGATION WIT H SHRI A.K.UPPAL 2 FOR DEPOSITS AND WITHDRAWAL OF AMOUNTS WITHOUT THE KNOWLE DGE OF THE ASSESSEE ARE COMMON WITH MS. BALWINDER KAUR NIJJARS C ASE ALSO AND FULLY APPLY TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE ALSO. THE SPEC IFIC GROUND NO. 3 WAS RAISED IN THE PRESENT APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) IN THE PRES ENT PROCEEDINGS ALSO, SAME IS REPRODUCED HEREUNDER : 3. THAT NO NOTICE UNDER SECTION 153A, 142(1) OR 14 3(2) OR UNDER ANY OTHER SECTION OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 WAS EVER SERVED ON THE A SSESSEE AND AS SUCH FRAMING OF AN ASSESSMENT WITHOUT MANDATORY SERVICE OF NOTICE IS ILLEGAL, ARBITRARY AND UNJUSTIFIED. 3. IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE ALSO, NOTICE IS STA TED TO HAVE BEEN SERVED THROUGH AFFIXTURE. HOWEVER, HERE EVEN THE PLACE OF AFFIXTU RE HAS NOT BEEN MENTIONED. CONSIDERING THE FACTS, SUBMISSIONS AND ARGUMEN TS TO BE COMMON, ACCEPTING THE PRAYER OF THE PARTIES, THE IMPUGNED ORDER IS SET ASIDE IN TOTO BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT(A) WITH A DIRECTION TO PASS A SPEAKING ORDER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER GIVING THE ASSESSEE A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD ON THE JURISDICTION ISSUE AND T HEN TO PROCEED TO DECIDE THE ISSUE ON MERITS, IF NEED BE. SAID ORDER WAS PRONO UNCED IN THE OPEN COURT AT THE TIME OF HEARING ITSELF. 4. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLO WED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 8 TH JUNE,2017. SD/- SD/- (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) (DIVA SI NGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER POONAM COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE DR ASSTT. REGISTRAR ITAT,CHANDIGARH.