Sh. Vipan Kumar Mahajan, Jalandhar V. The Income-tax Officer, Jalandhar

ITA 290/ASR/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0538 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 2 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-07-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 30-06-2016
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 02-05-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: BHAWANI SHANKER
• Assessee Lawyers: BHAGAT
• Keywords: Additional evidence

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH; AMRITSAR. (CAMP AT JALANDHAR) BEFORE SH. A.D. JAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. T.S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.290(ASR)/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2009-10 PAN: AASPM3469P SH. VIPAN KUMAR MAHAJAN, VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, C/O OMSONS INTERNATIOAL, WARD-1(4), JALANDHAR. JALANDHAR. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SH.M.R. BHAGAT, RESPONDENT BY: SH. BHAWANI SHANKER, DR DATE OF HEARING: 30/06/2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 14/07/2016 ORDER PER A.D. JAIN, JM: THIS IS THE ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR THE ASSESSMENT Y EAR 2009-10, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 21.02.2013, PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A), JALANDHAR. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF AP PEAL: 1. THE APPELLATE ORDER IS PERVERSE ARBITRARY, ILLE GAL AND NOT BASED ON FACTS OF THE CASE AND LAW INVOLVED ON THE P OINTS DISCUSSED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. 2. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS ) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFF ICER WHO ASSUMED JURISDICTION TO ASSESS THE INCOME OF THE AS SESSEE WITHOUT VALID SERVICE OF NOTICE U/S 143(2) OF THE AC T: AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 282 OF THE ACT AND NOTICE DATED 14- 09-2010 ALLEGEDLY ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX WAS WITHOUT JURISDICTION AND TO PRESUME T HAT ITA NO.290(ASR)/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 2 SERVICE OF NOTICE HAD BEEN EFFECTED AS THAT WAS NOT RECEIVED BACK. IT IS PRAYED THAT THE ASSESSMENT MAY BE CANCE LLED. 3. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ERRED IN CONFIRMING ADDITION OF RS.95,80,000/-WITHOUT CONSI DERING THE CASH FLOW STATEMENT AND THAT THE APPELLANT HAD RECEIVED ADVANCE OF RS.90,00,000/- AS PER AGREEMENT TO SELL HIS HOUSE PROPERTY WHICH WAS TO BE CONSIDERED U/S 51 OF THE A/ BE TREATED AS CASH CREDIT OR INVESTMENT BECAUSE IN THE CO/ PROCEEDINGS APPELLANT HAD PRODUCED: (I) THE EVIDENCE THAT HE HAD RECEIVED A SUM OF RS. 90 LACS ON THE BASIS OF AN AGREEMENT TO SELL HIS HOUSE PROPERTY WHICH ADVANCE U/S 51 OF THE ACT AND NOT TO BE TREATED AS INVESTMENT OR CASH CREDIT. (II) THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE AGREEMENT TO PRESENCE O F WITNESSES WAS SUMMARILY REJECTING WITHOUT TAKING ANY ENQUIRY FROM THE WITNESSES AND IGNORING THE AFFIDAVIT OF ONE OF THE WITNESS. (II) AND THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER ERRED IN NOT EXAMINING THE WITNESSES TO THE DEED OF AGREEMENT TO SELL AND THE APPELLANT TO ARRIVE AT THE CORRECT POSITION. IT IS PRAYED THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER MAY BE CANCELLED ON THIS ACCOUNT AS WELL. (IV) THE APPELLANT HAD FILED CASH FLOW STATEMENT I N THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. (V) INFORMATION GATHERED FROM THE STAMP VENDER WAS USED WITHOUT AFFORDING AN OPPORTUNITY TO ASSESSEE TO CROSS EXAMINE HIM. 4. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL , THE LEARNED CIT (A) ERRED IS NOT APPRECIATING THAT THE APPELLANT HAD RECEIVED RS. 20/- LACS ON 14-03-2008 AND BEING ADVANCE WAS NOT TO BE TREATED AS AN ASSET FOR THE PURPOSES O F WEALTH TAX AND SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED AS UNEXPLAI NED FOR THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2 009-10. IT IS PRAYED THAT THE ADDITION MAY BE DELETED. ITA NO.290(ASR)/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 3 2. GROUND NO.1 IS GENERAL IN NATURE, HENCE DOES NOT REQUIRE ANY ADJUDICATION. 3. APROPOS GROUND NO.2, THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSES SEE IS THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN OBSERVING THAT THE NOTICE U/S 143(2) OF THE ACT WAS VALIDLY SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE, PRESUMING THAT THE SERVICE OF THE NOTICE HAD BEEN EFFECTED AS IT HAD NOT BEEN RECEIVED BACK UNSERVED. 4. THE FACTS AS PER ASSESSMENT ORDER ARE THAT THE N OTICE U/S 143(2) OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED ON 14.09.2010, SENT THROUGH SPEE D POST AND ALSO SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE ON 15.09.2010. SIMULTANEOUSL Y, NOTICE U/S 143(2) WAS ALSO ISSUED BY THE ITO, WARD-1(4), JALANDHAR, O N 23.09.2010 AND SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE ON 24.09.2010. IN THIS REGAR D, IN PARAS 8 TO 16 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS HELD AS FOLL OWS: 8. IT IS NOT DISPUTED THAT THE NOTICE WAS ISSUED ON 14.09.2010 BY THE DCIT, RANGE-I THROUGH SPEED POST O N 14.09.2010 ITSELF AT THE CORRECT AND COMPLETE ADDRESS OF ASSESSEE WHICH WAS NOT RETURNED TO THE AO UNSERVED. A NOTHER COPY OF NOTICE WHICH IS DULY PLACED ON RECORD IS SERVE D AS THE RECEIPT OF THE NOTICE IS DULY SIGNED DATED 15.09.2010 . IT IS SIGNED BY THE SAME PERSON WHO HAD RECEIVED NOTICES CONTINUOUSLY DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND THE CASE WAS DULY ATTENDED BY THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE ASSESSEE . THERE IS ANOTHER NOTICE ON THE RECORDS IS ISSUED UNDER SECTION 143(2) OF IT ACT WITHIN TIME I.E. DATED 23.09.2010 BY ITO 1(4 ) ON ASSUMING CHARGE AS NEW INCUMBENT WHICH IS DULY RECE IVED ON 24.09.2010 BY THE SAME PERSON WHO HAD SIGNED IT AND E VEN A PHONE NO. 2430440 IS MENTIONED ON IT. THE SAME PERSO N HAS BEEN RECEIVING NOTICES DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDI NGS ALSO AND COMPLIANCE IS BEING MADE. IN FACT BEFORE THE CI T(A) THE SAME PERSON HAS SIGNED THE ADJOURNMENT DATE GIVEN TO ASSESSEE ON THE REQUEST LETTER OF THE COUNSEL OF AS SESSEE AND HIS NAME IS MENTIONED AS SUBHASH. THUS IT IS CRYST AL CLEAR THAT THIS PERSON SUBHASH HAS CONTINUOUSLY BEEN RECE IVING ON ITA NO.290(ASR)/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 4 BEHALF OF ASSESSEE AND DUE COMPLIANCE HAS BEEN MADE CONSEQUENTLY. 9. AS PER PROVISIONS OF SECTION 282 OF IT ACT THE I NCOME TAX ACT, 1961 A NOTICE REQUIRED TO BE SERVED UNDER THE ACT CAN BE SERVED EITHER BY POST OR AS IF IT WERE A SUMMONS ISSUED BY THE COURT UNDER THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 1908. A PRESUMPTION OF SERVICE BY POST ARISES IF THE NOTICE SENT THROUGH REGISTERED POST IS NOT RECEIVED BACK UNSERVED OR IS RE FUSED. AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF ORDER V RULE 9 OF THE CODE OF C IVIL PROCEDURE 1908 (CPC, FOR SHORT) THE NOTICE MAY BE S ENT THROUGH REGISTERED POST ACKNOWLEDGEMENT DUE, OR BY SPEED POST OR BY APPROVED COURIER SERVICE OR BY OTHER MEANS OF TRANS MISSION OF DOCUMENTS INCLUDING FAX ETC. 10. IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE THE PRESUMPTION OF DUE S ERVICE IS PROVED AS THE NOTICE SENT THROUGH SPEED POST HAS NOT BEEN RETURNED UNSERVED AND IT WAS SENT AT LEAST 16 DAYS P RIOR TO THE INTIMATION PERIOD. MOREOVER, ANOTHER COPY IS ALSO DUL Y SERVED ON SH. SUBHASH, AS DISCUSSED ABOVE. TO TOP IT, ANOTHER NOTICE DATED 23.09.2010 (I.E. STILL WITHIN TIME) WAS ALSO DU LY RECEIPTED BY SH. SUBHASH AND IN NO WAY IT CAN BE SAID THAT THE N OTICE WAS NOT SERVED WITHIN PRESCRIBED TIME OR TO SAY THAT SH. SUBHASH WAS NOT AUTHORIZED TO RECEIVE THE NOTICE IS N OT TENABLE IN VIEW OF THE DISCUSSIONS ABOVE. 11. THE RELIANCE OF ASSESSEE ON THE CASE OF M/S. HA RSINGAR GURKHA 129 ITD 315 (LUCKNOW BENCH) IS ALSO OF NO HE LP AS IN THAT CASE THE DISPUTE WAS REGARDING SERVING THROUGH NOTICE SERVER BUT IN THIS CASE NOTICE WAS NOT ONLY SERVED T HROUGH NOTICE SERVER BUT ALSO SENT THROUGH SPEED POST WHICH UNDISPUTEDLY NEVER RECEIVED BACK AND THE PRESUMPTION AS TO SERVICE OF SUCH NOTICE IS AVAILABLE. 12. SIMILARLY THE RELIANCE OF ASSESSEE ON THE ORDER OF MY PREDECESSOR IN APPEAL NO. 408/2007-08 CIT(A)/JAL. D ATED 24.03.2011 IN CASE OF M/S. CHARAN & J.K. FINANCE CO . IS ALSO NOT GOING TO HELP ASSESSEE AS IT WAS RELATED TO SU BMITTED SERVICE THROUGH AFFIXTURE AND NOT THE NORMAL SERVICE OF NOTICE. 13. THE CHALLENGE TO NOTICE ISSUED INITIALLY BY THE DCIT ON THE GROUND THAT THE INCOME RETURNED BEING BELOW TAXABALE LIMIT, HE HAD NO JURISDICTION TO ISSUE SUCH NOTICE IS ALSO NOT VALID AS AFTER ITA NO.290(ASR)/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 5 THE RESTRUCTURING OF THE DEPARTMENT ALL THE OFFICER S IN THE RANGE HAVE A CONCURRENT JURISDICTION AND THERE IS NO BAR I F A CASE THE INCOME IS BELOW TAXABLE LIMIT IS HANDLED INITIALLY B Y THE DCIT. THIS ARGUMENT ALSO IS OF NO USE AND NOT VALID. 14. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE IT IS CLEAR THAT THERE WAS DUE SERVICE OF NOTICES AND THIS GROUND IS DISMISSED. 15. THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES SOUGHT TO BE ADMITTED A RE IN SHAPE OF ANNEXURE B,C, D AND E FILED WHICH CONSISTS O F: (I) A LETTER CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN WRITTEN BY ASSESSE E TO SH. S.S. BAINS CERTAIN DETAILS IN CONNECTION WITH ASSESSM ENT. (II) A LETTER WRITTEN TO THE ASSESSEE BY HIS PRESEN T COUNSELS ASKING FOR CERTAIN DETAILS IN CONNECTION WITH ASSES SMENT. (III) D IS RECEIPT OF A COURIER COMPANY IN RESPE CT OF SOME DOCUMENTS SENT TO SH. S.S BAINS. (IV) E IS COURIER TRACKING REPORT. THE AO IN HIS COMMENTS HAS OPINED THAT THESE DOCUMENTS ARE NOTHING BUT EXTENSION OF ARGUMENTS TAK EN. THESE ARE NOT RELEVANT AS NO SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS AR E BROUGHT ON RECORDS. 16. AFTER CAREFULLY CONSIDERING, IT IS FOUND THAT TH E REASON ADVANCED FOR ADMISSION OF THESE DOCUMENTS IS THAT T HEY COME TO POSSESSION OF ASSESSEE AFTER THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED. IT IS A FACT THAT THE DOCUMENTS AS ASKED IN THESE LE TTERS FROM ASSESSEE BY ITS COUNSEL OR BY SH. S.S. BAINS BY THE AS SESSEE AS CLAIMED ARE STILL NOT MADE AVAILABLE. THE COURIER ALSO WAS NOT SERVED ON THE ADDRESS OF SH. S.S. BAINS. IN VIEW OF THIS, THESE DOCUMENTS ARE MERELY ARGUMENTS, NOT SUPPORTED B Y THE NECESSARY EVIDENCE (IN FACT NOT BACKED BY ANY EVIDEN CE). SINCE THESE DOCUMENTS ARE NOT RELEVANT AT ALL TO THE ISSUE INVOLVED, THEY ARE NOT ADMITTED AND THE MATTER CAN BE WELL DEC IDED WITHOUT THEM ON THE BASIS OF MATERIAL ON RECORDS. 4. THUS, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS HELD THAT THE NOTICE IS SUED ON 14.09.2010 HAVING NOT BEEN RETURNED UNSERVED TO THE AO, IT IS TO BE TAKEN AS DULY SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. CIT(A) SAYS THAT TH E COPY OF THE SAID NOTICE WAS SERVED ON ONE SH. SUBHASH; THAT THE SAID SH. SUBHASH HAD ITA NO.290(ASR)/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 6 BEEN CONTINUOUSLY RECEIVING NOTICES DURING THE ASSE SSMENT PROCEEDINGS; THAT EVEN THE OTHER NOTICE ISSUED U/S 143(2), ON 23 .09.2010 WAS RECEIVED BY THE SAID SH. SUBHASH; THAT DUE COMPLIA NCE OF ALL THE NOTICES SERVED ON SH SUBHASH, HAS BEEN MADE BY THE REPRESEN TATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE; THAT THEREFORE, IT COULD NOT BE SAID IN A NY MANNER, THAT THE NOTICE DATED 14.09.2010 WAS NOT SERVED ON THE ASSES SEE WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED TIME, OR THAT SH. SUBHASH WAS NOT AUTHO RIZED BY THE ASSESSEE TO RECEIVE THE NOTICES. 5. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, AS BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW, HAS MAINTAINED THE STAND TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE. AS PER THIS STAND, THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT AUTHORIZED ANY PERSON TO RECEIVE NOTICE ON HIS BEHALF; THAT EVEN THE AO HIMSELF OBSERVED THAT THE NOTICE U/S 143(2) WAS SENT BY SPEED POST AND WAS ALSO SERVED ON SOME OTHER PER SON. ATTENTION IN THIS REGARD HAS BEEN DRAWN TO PAGE 18 OF THE IMPUGN ED ORDER, WHEREIN, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS REPRODUCED THE AOS RESPONSE GIV EN TO THE ASSESSEE DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE AFFIDAVIT FI LED BY THE ASSESSEE, DEPOSITING THAT THE NOTICE DATED 14.09.2010 WAS NOT SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE, AS FOLLOWS: IN THIS CONNECTION IT IS TO INFORM YOU THAT SH. SAT PAL, DCIT, RANGE-1, JALANDHAR ISSUED THESE NOTICES ON 14.09.20 10 AND SENT THROUGH SPEED POST ON 14.09.2010 (POST OFFICE RECEIPT ON THE RECORD). SECONDLY NOTICE SERVER OF THIS OFFICE SERVED PHOTOCOPY OF A NOTICE U/S 143(2) ON YOUR PERSON ON 15.09.2010. LATER ON THIS CASE WAS TRANSFERRED TO T HIS WARD ITA NO.290(ASR)/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 7 SH. V.K. ABROL, ITO, 1(4), JALANDHAR ISSUED NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) ON 23.09.2010 AND NOTICE SERVER OF T HIS OFFICE SERVED THIS NOTICE ON YOUR PERSON ON 24.09.2010. 6. ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, H ERE, THE AO HIMSELF OBSERVED THAT NOTICE DATED 23.09.2010 WAS SERVED ON A PERSON OF THE ASSESSEE ON 24.09.2010. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASS ESSEE HAS REITERATED THE ASSESSEES STANCE THAT HE HAD NOT AUTHORIZED A NYBODY TO RECEIVED NOTICE ON HIS BEHALF. 7. THUS, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS CONTE NDED THAT SINCE THE JURISDICTIONAL NOTICE ISSUED U/S 143(2) OF THE ACT WAS NOT SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE, ALL PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT THERETO STAND NU LLIFY AND THE SAME BE QUASHED. 8. THE LD. DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, RELIED ON THE IMP UGNED ORDER, CONTENDING THAT SH. SUBHASH HAD BEEN REPEATEDLY REC EIVING THE STATUTORY NOTICES ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE AND DUE COMPLIANCE W AS ALSO MADE ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE IN RESPONSE TO THE SAID NOTI CES; AND THAT, THEREFORE, IT CANNOT AT ALL BE SAID THAT THE SAID SH. SUBHASH WAS NOT AUTHORIZED BY THE ASSESSEE TO RECEIVE NOTICES ON HIS BEHALF. 9. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND HAVE PER USED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD WITH REGARD TO THIS ISSUE. SECTION 282 OF THE ACT PROVIDES THAT ANY NOTICE UNDER THE ACT HAS TO BE SERVED ON THE PE RSON NAMED THEREIN, ITA NO.290(ASR)/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 8 EITHER BY POST OR AS IF IT WERE A SUMMONS ISSUED BY A COURT UNDER THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908. 10. ORDER V, RULE 12 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDUR E PROVIDES THAT WHEREVER IT IS PRACTICABLE, SERVICE SHALL BE MADE O N THE DEFENDANT IN PERSON, UNLESS HE HAS AN AGENT EMPOWERED TO ACCEPT SERVICE, IN WHICH CASE, SERVICE ON SUCH AGENT SHALL BE SUFFICIENT. TH US, IT IS SELF-EVIDENT THAT THE RECIPIENT OF THE NOTICE, IF NOT THE ASSESS EE HIMSELF, SHOULD BE AN AGENT OF THE ASSESSEE, DULY AUTHORIZED TO ACCEPT SE RVICE ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. 11. APROPOS THE NOTICE SENT THROUGH SPEED POST ON 1 4.09.2010, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS CONTENDED THAT SINCE T HE TRACKING RECORD OF THE SAID NOTICE IS NOT AVAILABLE, THERE IS NO PRESU MPTION OF THE SERVICE OF THE SAID NOTICE ON THE ASSESSEE, REGARDING WHICH NO N-SERVICE, THE ASSESSEE HAD ALSO FILED A SPECIFIC AFFIDAVIT BEFORE THE AO, AS DEALT WITH BY THE AO IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND BY THE LD. CIT(A ) IN PARA 7 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER. THIS IS FOUND TO BE CORRECT. HOWEV ER, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS NOT ADDRESSED THIS CHALLENGE AT ALL. IT HAS MERELY BEEN OBSERVED THAT THE NOTICE SENT THROUGH SPEED POST WAS NEVER RECEIVED U NSERVED BY THE AO; THAT THE LD. CIT(A), WHO HAD EXAMINED THE ASSESSMEN T RECORD, DID NOT FIND ANY EVIDENCE/PROOF OF THE SERVICE OF THE NOTIC E SENT BY SPEED POST; THAT HE DID NOT BRING ON RECORD THAT THE NOTICE SEN T THROUGH SPEED POST ITA NO.290(ASR)/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 9 WAS PROPERLY ADDRESSED TO THE ASSESSEE, WHICH PRESU MPTION MADE BY THE LD. CIT(A) IS NOT CORRECT; THAT IT IS POSSIBLE THAT THE NOTICE SENT MIGHT HAVE BEEN RETURNED, BUT HAD NOT BEEN PLACED ON RECORD.; THAT IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, IT IS NOT GOOD ENOUGH TO PRESUME DU E SERVICE, ON THE BASIS OF WHICH, THE ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION CAN BE HELD TO BE VALID; THAT WITHOUT PREJUDICE, SERVICE BY POST HAS BEEN HELD TO MEAN A LETTER SENT BY REGISTERED POST, ACKNOWLEDGEMENT DUE; AND T HAT THE ALLEGED DISPATCH OF NOTICE THROUGH SPEED POST AND WITHOUT T HE TRACKING RECORD THEREOF, THERE IS NOTHING ON RECORD TO BELIEVE SERV ICE OF NOTICE. 12. THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE TO THE EFFECT T HAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAD NOT DEALT WITH, MUCH LESS DECIDED, THE ISSUE OF DUE SERVICE OR OTHERWISE OF THE NOTICE SENT BY SPEED POST, IS RIGHT DESIRED, TH E ASSESSEE HAVING MADE SPECIFIC CONTENTION WITH REGARD THERETO, AS ABOVE. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, THIS ISSUE IS OF CRUCIAL IMPORTANCE. LEAV ING ASIDE THE ISSUE OF GOOD SERVICE, OR OTHERWISE, OF THE NOTICE SENT THR OUGH SPEED POST AND GOING ON TO DECIDE THE PROPRIETY OR OTHERWISE OF TH E NOTICE AMOUNTS TO SKIRTING THE REQUIREMENT OF ORDER V, RULE 12 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. THIS IS A MATTER OF CONCERNING THE VALID ITY OF ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION, GOING TO THE ROOT OF THE MATTER, WHI CH REQUIRES TO BE DEALT WITH AND DECIDED FIRST BY THE LD. CIT(A). THUS, WE DEEM IT APPROPRIATE TO REMIT THIS MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT(A), TO DECIDE WHETHER OR NOT THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 143(2) OF THE ACT, ON 14.09,.2010 , BY THE JCIT, R-1, THROUGH SPEED POST, WAS OR WAS NOT SERVED ON THE A SSESSEE. FOR THIS, AS ITA NO.290(ASR)/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 10 RIGHTLY CONTENDED BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESS EE, THE TRACKING RECORD OF THE POSTAL DEPARTMENT WOULD HAVE TO BE REFERRED TO. ANOTHER OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE IN THIS REGARD IS THAT NOTHING WAS BROUGHT ON RECORD THAT THE NOTICE WAS NOT PROPERLY ADDRESSED TO THE ASSES SEE. THE LD. CIT(A) WILL ALSO GO INTO THIS ASPECT. THE ASSESSEE SHALL BE AFF ORDED DUE AND ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING IN THE REMAND PROCEEDINGS A ND THE ASSESSEE, NO DOUBT, SHALL COOPERATE WITH THE LD. CIT(A). THE DEC ISION ON THE OTHER ISSUE WILL, OBVIOUSLY DEPEND ON THE OUTCOME OF THIS ISSU ES OF SERVICE OF NOTICE SENT THROUGH SPEED POST, WHICH ISSUES HAVE ALSO TO BE DECIDED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IN THE LIGHT OF THE FINDINGS TO BE ARRIVED ON THIS JURISDICTIONAL ISSUE. ORDERED ACCORDINGLY. 13. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS TREATED AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 14/0 7/ 2016. SD/- SD/- (T.S. KAPOOR) (A.D. JAIN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER /SKR/ DATED: 14/07/2016 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE ASSESSEE:SH. VIPAN KUMAR MAHAJAN, JALANDHAR. 2. THE ITO 1(4), JALANDHAR 3. THE CIT(A), JLR 4. THE CIT, JLR 5. THE SR DR, ITAT, AMRITSAR. TRUE COPY BY ORDER INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AMRITSAR BENCH: AMRITSAR.