The Income-tax Officer, Amritsar. V. Sh. Inder Singh & Joginder Singh, Amritsar.

ITA 668/ASR/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7745 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 11 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-10-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 05-11-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S S KANWAL LD
• Assessee Lawyers: PADAM BAHL LD
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Principle of natural justice; Reassessment proceedings
• Section: 142(1); 147; 148; 144

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH; AMRITSAR BEFORE SH. T.S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. N.K.CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A NO.668(ASR)/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2005-0 6 INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2), AMRITSAR. VS. SH. INDER SINGH & JOGINDER SINGH, VILL:-KAMBOJ, P.O. HEIR, AMRITSAR. PAN: (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SH. S.S. KANWAL (LD. DR) RESPONDENT BY: SH. PADAM BAHL (LD. CA) DATE OF HEARING: 24.10.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 31.10.2017 ORDER PER N.K.CHOUDHRY: THE INSTANT APPEAL HAS BEEN PREFERRED BY THE REVENUE DEPARTMENT, ON FEELING AGGRIEVED AGAINST THE ORDER D ATED 12.08.2014 PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A), AMRITSAR, FOR ASST. YEAR: 2005 -06. 2. THE REVENUE DEPARTMENT HAS RAISED THE SOLE GROUN D OF APPEAL. WHETHER, IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E, THE LD. CIT(A), IS RIGHT IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.1,0 1,00,000/-, AS DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS NO EVIDENCE WAS A VAILABLE THAT SH. INDER SINGH & JOGINDER SINGH HAVE ALREADY EXPIR ED BEFORE ISSUING THE NOTICE U/S. 148 AND SOME NOTICES WERE S ERVED UPON THE FAMILY MEMBERS BUT NEITHER ANY REPLY WAS FILED DURI NG THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS NOR BROUGHT INTO THE NOTICE OF THEN A.O. REGARDING THE DEATH OF SH. INDER SINGH & JOGINDER S INGH. IN VIEW OF NON-COMPLIANCE OF NOTICED SERVED UPON THE MEMBERS O F THE ASSESSEE IT WAS NOT POSSIBLE TO ASCERTAIN THE STATUS OF PERS ONS ON THE BASIS OF BANK ACCOUNT WHETHER ITS INDL./HUF/OR AOP. THE PRUD ENCE OF AO DEMANDED THAT INFORMATION AVAILABLE ON RECORD IN NA ME OF SH. ITA NO.668 (ASR)/2014 ASST. YEAR: 2005-06 2 INDER SINGH & JOGINDER SINGH SHOULD BE TREATED AS A OP IN WHICH SHARE OF PERSONS IS NOT PRESCRIBED. MOREOVER, THE A SSESSEE FAILED TO EXPLAIN THE CASH DEPOSITS IN THE BANKS IN SPITE OF VARIOUS OPPORTUNITIES GIVEN. SINCE THE INFORMATION AVAILABL E ON RECORD WAS IN THE JOINT NAMES OF SH. INDER SINGH & JOGINDER SINGH BOTH SONS OF SH. NATHA SINGH RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE KAMBOJ, P.O. HEIR, AMRITSAR, THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED IN THE STATUS OF AOP. 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE AS UNDER: THAT THE INCOME TAX PROCEEDINGS IN THE INSTANT CASE WERE STARTED FOR THE ASST. YEAR: 2005-06 U/S 147 OF THE I. T . ACT AND NOTICE U/S 148 WAS ISSUED THROUGH REGISTERED POST VIDE LET TER NO.8844 DATED 21.03.2012 AND THE COPY OF THE SAME WA S GOT AFFIXED AT THE ADDRESS OF THE ASSESSEE ON 29.03.2012. HOWE VER, THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO FILE ITS RETURN, THEREFORE, THE F RESH NOTICE U/S 142(1) WAS ALSO ISSUED ON 12.09.2012 AND THE SAME WAS SERVED AT THE ADDRESS AVAILABLE THROUGH SPEED POST VIDE NO.2955 DATED 14.09.2012, HOWEVER, NEITHER THE ASSESSEE NOR HI S REPRESENTATIVE ATTENDED THE OFFICE ON THE SAID DATE, THEREAFTER, ANOTHER NOTICE DATED 19.10.2012 WAS ALSO ISSUED AND WHI CH WAS SERVED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 20.01.2012 REQUIRING THE ASSESSEE TO FILE HIS RETURN OF INCOME BY 31.10.2012, BUT AGAIN TH E ASSESSEE NEITHER ATTENDED THE OFFICE, NOR FILED WRITTEN SUBMI SSION AND AGAIN AND AGAIN SEVERAL OTHER NOTICES HAVE BEEN ISSUED A ND ALSO AFFIXED AND LASTLY AFFIXED ON 08.03.2013, HOWEVER, DID NOT YIELD ANY RESULT, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS CONSTRAINED TO FRAME THE ASSESSMENT AS EX-PARTE U/S 144 AND FINALLY ASSESSE D THE INCOME AT RS.1,01,00,000/- BY TREATING THE CASH DEP OSITS AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDITS INTO THE BANK ACCOUNTS AS OF THE ST ATUS OF AOP. ITA NO.668 (ASR)/2014 ASST. YEAR: 2005-06 3 4. THE ASSESSEES LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE CHALLENGED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND THE LD. CIT(A) DELE TED THE SAID ADDITION MAINLY ON THE GROUND OF DEFECTIVE NOTICE AND DIFFERENT STATUS OF ASSESSEE. 5. THE REVENUE DEPARTMENT, ON BEING DISSATISFIED WITH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) PREFERRED THE INSTANT APPEAL AND IN SUPPORT OF ITS CASE SUBMITTED THAT THE NOTICES HAVE BEEN ISSUED PRO PERLY TO THE ASSESSEE AND HAVE DULY BEEN SERVED TO THE ADDRESS AVAILABL E OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, HOWEVER, NEITHER ASSESSEE NOR THEIR LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE APPEARED BEFORE THE A SSESSING OFFICER AND IN CONSTRAINED CIRCUMSTANCES, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS HAV ING NO OPTION EXCEPT TO FRAME THE ASSESSMENT U/S 144 OF THE I.T. ACT AS EXPARTE. FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT ALTHOUGH THE LEGAL REPRESENTA TIVE OF THE ASSESSEE ALTHOUGH RAISED THE ISSUE/GROUNDS BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) THAT THE NOTICE ADDRESSED TO THE DEAD MAN CANNOT BE TREATED AS VALID NOTICE AND IN FACT THE NOTICE U/S 148 IN PURSUANCE/ ASSESSME NT WAS ISSUED IN THE NAME OF DECEASED ASSESSEE LIABLE TO BE QUASHE D BEING IN VIOLATION OF THE PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE, HOWEVER , IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE FACTUM OF DEMISE OF THE ASSESSEE I.E. SH. INDER SINGH AND SH. JOGINDER SINGH HAVE NEVER BEEN INFORMED TO THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER EITHER BY THE LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE OR OTHERWISE ANY CONCERNED PERSON WHO WERE RECEIVING THE NOTICES ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. HENCE THE NOTICE CAN NOT HELD DEFECTIVE. THE LD. DR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT IN THE INSTANT CASE, THERE WERE TWO BANK DEPOSITS OF RS.51,00,000/- IN CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA AND ITA NO.668 (ASR)/2014 ASST. YEAR: 2005-06 4 RS.50,00,000/- IN PUNJAB & SIND BANK DURING THE FINA NCIAL YEAR: 2004- 05 RELEVANT TO THE ASST. YEAR 2005-06 AND AN INFORMAT ION WAS CALLED FROM MANAGER, PUNJAB & SIND BANK, NEW DELHI REGARDI NG THE CASH DEPOSITS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE BY ISSUING THE NOTICE U/S 13 3(6) ON DATED 01.10.2012 VIDE NO.3563 AND ON RECEIVING OF DE SIRED INFORMATION, THE SAME WAS EXAMINED AND PLACED ON RECORD . SINCE, SEVERAL OPPORTUNITIES HAVE BEEN GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE , H OWEVER, REASON BEST KNOWN TO THE L. RS OF THE ASSESSEE, WHO FAILED TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCES OF THE CASH DEPOSITS AND MOREOVER HAS NOT RESPON DED TO THE RELEVANT NOTICES ISSUED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, AND AL SO NO EXPLANATION WAS FURNISHED. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT HAVING ANY OPTIO N EXCEPT TO FRAME THE ASSESSMENT U/S 144 OF THE ACT TO THE B EST OF HIS JUDGMENT AS THE AFORESAID AMOUNT REMAINED UNEXPLAINED AND EVEN OTHERWISE THE STATUS OF INDIVIDUAL HAS NOT BEEN ESTABLISH ED AND IT WAS A MATTER OF FACT THAT SH. INDER SINGH AND SH. JOGIN DER SINGH HAD UNDERGONE THE TRANSACTIONS IN THE FORM OF CASH DEPOSITS I NTO THE BANK IN A COLLECTIVE MANNER AND HAS OPERATED THE BANK ACCOUNT IN THE JOINT NAMES, AND EVEN OTHERWISE, THE TRANSACTIONS HAVE BEEN CAR RIED OUT BY BOTH THE PERSONS JOINTLY AND COLLECTIVELY, THEREFORE, T HE ASSESSEE TREATED THE ASSESSMENT AS AN AOP. 6. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. AR VEHEMENTLY SUBMITTED T HAT SH. INDER SINGH WAS EXPIRED ON 24 TH OCT.,2010 AND SH. JOGINDER SINGH ON 11.08.2006 WHEREAS NOTICE U/S 148 WAS ISSUED ON 21 ST MARCH, 2012 AND THEREAFTER REMAND REPORT WAS CALLED UPON DATED 12 .05.2014 AND THE ASSESSMENT WAS MADE ON 25 TH MARCH, 2013 WHILE ISSUING NOTICES TO THE DECEASED PERSONS. FURTHER, THE LD. AR RELIED UPON THE FOLLOWING CASES. ITA NO.668 (ASR)/2014 ASST. YEAR: 2005-06 5 (1) LATE MRS JERBANOO N. WADIA VS. ACIT REPORTED AT 361 I TD 185 (BOM.). (2) ITO VS. GANGA PARSAD JAISWAL REPORTED AT 39 ITD 185 (BOM). (3) CIT VS. DALUMAL SHAYUMAL REPORTED AT 276 ITR 62 (MD) . (4) KESAR DEVI VS. CIT REPORTED AT 321 ITR 344 (RAJ). (5) BRAMH PARKASH VS. ITO REPORTED AT 275 ITR 242(DEL). (6) SURESH CHANDER JAISWAL REPORTED AT 325 ITR 563(ALL). (7) CIT VS. SH. RAKESH KUMAR REPORTED AT 313 ITR 305 (P&H ). AND FOCUSED THAT THE NOTICE WAS ISSUED TO THE DECEASED PERSO N ONLY AND NO NOTICE HAVE BEEN SERVED ON THEIR LEGAL REPRESEN TATIVE WHICH MAKES THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS VOID AB INITIO AND THEREF ORE, THE LD. CIT(A) RIGHTLY SET ASIDE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. FURTHER, THE LD. AR ALSO RELIED UPON THE MANY CASES A S MENTIONED BELOW. (1) SUN ROLLING MILLS (PVT.) LTD. REPORTED AT 160 ITR 41 2 (CAL). (2) KHIAL DAS & SONS VS. CIT REPORTED AT 225 ITR 960 (MP ) (3) CIT VS. BIBHUTI BHUSHAN MALLIC AND ORS. REPORTED AT 165 ITR 107 (CAL.) (4) CIT VS. ISHWAR SINGH & SONS REPORTED AT 131 ITR 480 ( ALL.) (5) GAGENDRA KUMAR BANTHIA VS. UNION OF INDIA REPORTED A T 222 ITR 632 (CAL) (6) CIT VS. RAM DAS DEOKINANDAN PRASAD REPORTED AT 277 ITR 197 (ALL) AND REITERATED THAT DEFECT IN THE NOTICE U/S 148 WOUL D BE FATAL TO THE VALIDITY OF THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND TO BE IPSO FACTO GOES TO THE ROOT OF THE CASE ABOUT ITS NULLITY, THEREFORE, T HE LD. CIT(A) RIGHTLY ITA NO.668 (ASR)/2014 ASST. YEAR: 2005-06 6 HELD THAT THE ASSESSMENT FRAMED ON THE BASIS OF WRONG INI TIATION OF PROCEEDINGS U/S 148 AND BY IMPROPER SERVICE OF NOTICE TO ASSUME JURISDICTION AND SUBSEQUENT ADDITION MADE IN SUCH CIRCUMSTA NCES BY THE A.O IN DIFFERENT STATUS AT RS.1,01 CRORE CANNOT BE SUSTAINED AND IS THEREFORE LIABLE TO BE DELETED. 7. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH WITH THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, AS IN THE INSTANT CASE THE MOOT QUESTION HAS BEEN RA ISED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT AS TO WHETHER THE ISSUE OF NOTICE IN THE NAM E OF DECEASED PERSONS SHALL MAKE ENTIRE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING AS N ULL AND VOID. WE HAVE GIVEN THOUGHTFUL CONSIDERATION TO THE PECULIA R FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE INSTANT CASE THAT IN THE INSTANT CA SE VARIOUS NOTICES HAVE BEEN SENT TO THE ASSESSEE, HOWEVER, THE SAME WERE RECEIVED BY THE LEGAL HEIR OR THE CONCERNED PERSONS AND IT IS UNDISPUTED FACT THAT EVEN AFTER RECEIVING MANY NOTICES THE INFORMATION ABOUT THE DEATH OF THE ASSESSEE WAS NEVER BEEN INTIMATED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND EVEN OTHERWISE WE ARE WONDERING WIT HOUT RECEIVING THE INFORMATION ABOUT THE DEATH OF THE ASSES SEE, HOW THE ASSESSING OFFICER OR ANY OTHER REVENUE AUTHORITY CAN CONCE IVE THE FACTUM OF THE DEATH OF THE ASSESSEE. IT IS THE ONUS DUTY O F THE LEGAL HEIR OR LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE TO BRING O N RECORD THE DETAILS OF THE DEATH OF THE ASSESSEE BY INTIMATING IMMED IATELY AFTER KNOWING THE INITIATION OF INCOME TAX PROCEEDINGS AND/O R TO THE INCOME TAX AUTHORITY IN NORMAL CIRCUMSTANCES AS WELL, THEN ONL Y THE LIABILITY OF THE LEGAL HEIR CAN BE ABSOLVED AND PROPER ASSESSMENT P ROCEEDINGS CAN BE INITIATED AND FRAMED. COMING TO THE INSTANT CASE, AS IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE D EATH OF THE ASSESSEE WAS ONLY INITIATED TO THE LD. CIT(A) BY FIL ING APPEAL ITA NO.668 (ASR)/2014 ASST. YEAR: 2005-06 7 AGAINST THE ASSESSMENT ORDER BY THE LEGAL HEIR OF THE ASSESSEE. IT IS UNDISPUTED MATTER ON RECORD THAT NO INFORMATION/LETT ER/DEATH CERTIFICATE WITH REGARD TO THE DEATH OF THE ASSESSEE HAS E VER BEEN GIVEN BY THE LEGAL HEIRS/ LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES OF TH E ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, THE NOTICES HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO THE DEAD PER SON CANNOT BE A GROUND TO SET ASIDE THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS. IN THIS REGARD, IT WAS RIGHTLY HELD BY THE LD. CIT(A) THAT THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEES COUNSEL THAT THE SERVICE OF NOTICES AND FRAMING ASSESSMENT UPON DEA D PERSONS ON THE FACE ON RECORDS DOES NOT HOLD GOOD AS NO SUCH EVIDE NCE WHICH MAY SUGGESTS THAT THE PERSONS HAVE EXPIRED, WAS BROUGHT O N RECORD BY THE ASSESSEES DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. HAD THE INFORMATION TO THIS EFFECT BEING SUPPLIED DURING T HE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE AO MAY HAVE CONSIDERED THE SAME BEFORE PASSING ORDER IN THIS CASE. FINALLY, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT IF THE L EGAL HEIR OR LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE WOULD HAVE INTIMATE THE CONCERNED REVENUE AUTHORITY ABOUT THE DEATH OF THE DE CEASED PERSON (ASSESSEE), THEN CERTAINLY THERE WOULD HAVE NOT DIFFEREN T SITUATION AND AO WOULD HAVE CONSIDERED THE SAME BEFORE PASSING APPROPR IATE ASSESSMENT ORDER, HOWEVER, ONCE THE INFORMATION HAS NOT B EEN GIVEN TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHICH ACCORDING TO OUR MIND DUTY W AS CAST UPON THE ASSESSEE,S LEGAL HEIR/LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT HAVING ANY OPTION EXCEPT TO PROCEED FUR THER IN THE NORMAL CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH IN THE INSTANT CASE HAS BEEN DON E, THEREFORE, WE ARE NOT INCLINED TO SUPPORT THE CONTENTI ON OF THE ASSESSEES LEGAL HEIR THAT THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS INITIATE D U/S 148 OF THE ACT WAS VOID AB INITIO BEING NOTICES HAS BEEN ISSUED TO THE DEAD PERSON AND REASSESSMENT FRAMED AGAINST THE DEAD PERSONS. ITA NO.668 (ASR)/2014 ASST. YEAR: 2005-06 8 THE CASE RELIED UPON BY THE LD. AR DOES NOT SUPPORTS T HE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE AS SAME ARE DISSIMILAR TO THE FACT OF THE INSTAN T CASE BECAUSE IN THOSE CASES THE INTIMATION ABOUT THE DEATH OF THE ASSESSEE HAD DULY BEEN GIVEN TO THE REVENUE DEPARTMENT AND T HE REVENUE DEPARTMENT IN SOME OF THE CASES CALLED UPON THE LEGAL H EIR OF THE ASSESSEE AND IN SOME OF THE CASES STILL RECEIVING THE INFORMA TION ABOUT THE DEATH OF THE ASSESSEE CONTINUED WITH THE PROCEEDING, THEREFORE, THE VARIOUS HONBLE COURTS SET ASIDE THE ASSESSMENT PASSED AG AINST THE DEAD PERSON BY OBSERVING THE NOTICE ISSUED TO THE D EAD PERSON AS DEFECTIVE, HOWEVER, IN THE INSTANT CASE SITUATION IS NOT SO SIMILAR BECAUSE IN THE INSTANT CASE THE ASSESSEES LEGAL HEIR OR LEGA L REPRESENTATIVE NEVER BEEN MADE ANY EFFORT TO INTIMA TE THE REVENUE DEPARTMENT ABOUT THE DEATH OF THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, CITED CASE DOES NOT COMES TO RESCUE THE INSTANT ASSESSEE. NOW COMING TO THE SECOND ASPECT OF THE CASE AS IT REFLECTS FROM THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT INFORMATIO N QUA TO BANK DEPOSITS OF RS.51 LACS IN THE CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA AND RS.50 LACS IN THE PUNJAB & SIND BANK DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 200 4-05 RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 WAS RECEIVED, ON WHICH THE P ROCEEDING U/S 147/148 OF THE I.T. ACT HAS BEEN INITIATED. WHILE ISSUING NOTICE U/S 148 IN THE NAME OF SH. INDER SINGH AND SH. JOGINDER SINGH HAS NOT TAKEN STATUS OF THE ASSESSEE AS AN INDIVIDUAL. AS PER AIR I NFORMATION, THE AO WAS SUPPOSED TO INITIATE PROCEEDINGS IN THE NAME OF SH. INDER SINGH IN HIS INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY BECAUSE THE SAVING BAN K WITH CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA HAS BEEN OPERATED IN INDIVIDUAL NAME O NLY AND SAVING BANK ACCOUNT WITH PUNJAB & SIND BANK, AMRITSAR WAS BE LONGED TO SH. INDER SINGH BEING FIRST HOLDER WITH HIS BROTHER SH. J OGINER SINGH WHO WAS CO-HOLDER OF THE SAID BANK ACCOUNT. ITA NO.668 (ASR)/2014 ASST. YEAR: 2005-06 9 AS WE REALIZED THAT IN THE INSTANT CASE NOTICE U/S 148 WAS ISSUED BY A.O. AND SENT THROUGH REGISTERED POST VIDE NO.8844 DATED 21 ST MARCH, 2012 WHICH WAS RECEIVED BACK UNDELIVERED ON 30 TH MARCH, 2012, HOWEVER, THE SAID NOTICE WAS AFFIXED/PASTED ON TH E NOTICE BOARD OF THE OFFICE ON 29 TH MARCH, 2012 THROUGH HIS ORDER OF AFFIXTURE DATED 26.03.2012, THEREFORE, IT IS REALLY UNIMAGINABLE AND STRANGE THAT ALTHOUGH UNSERVED NOTICE WAS RECEIVED BACK ON 31 ST MARCH, 2012, HOWEVER, THE AO WROTE HIS SATISFACTION ON 26.03.2012 IT SELF THAT NOTICE WILL NOT BEEN SERVED IN NORMAL COURSE OF SERVICE, THEREF ORE, THE SAME WAS PASTED IN THE OFFICE NOTICE BOARD ON 29 TH MARCH, 2012. IT IS A MATTER ON RECORD THAT AO DID NOT MAKE ANY ATTEMPT TO FIND WHERE ABOUT THE ASSESSEE AS PER ADDRESS GIVEN IN THE BANK RECORDS . FOR EFFECTIVE SERVICE OF THE NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE I.T. ACT, IT IS NOT IN CONTROVERSY THAT NEITHER ANY NOTICES WAS SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE IN PERSON OR THROUGH POST OR THROUGH ITS AFFIXTURE UNDER ORDER 5 OF RULE 20 OF CPC WHICH MANDATES ALTERNATIVE SERVICE OF THE NOT ICE. ACCORDING TO OUR MIND WITHOUT WAITING FOR THE SERVICE OF NOTICE SENT THROUGH REGISTERED POST VIDE NO. 8844 DATED 21 ST MARCH, 2012, THE A.O PASSED AN AFFIXTURE ORDER ON DATED 26 TH MARCH, 2012 ITSELF WHICH CREATES MANY DOUBTS ABOUT THE NOTICES U/S 148 OF THE ACT AND EVEN OTH ERWISE THE A.O ISSUED NOTICE TO THE ASSESSEE IN ITS INDIVIDUAL STATUS, HOWEVER, FRAMED THE ASSESSMENT IN THE STATUS OF AOP EVEN AFTER GOI NG THE FACT THAT AMOUNT OF RS.51 LACS WAS IN THE NAME OF SH. INDER SINGH INDIVIDUALLY IN THE SAVING BANK ACCOUNT WITH CENTRAL B ANK OF INDIA, THEREFORE, IT WAS INCUMBENT UPON THE ASSESSEE TO VERIFY T HE STATUS OF THE ASSESSEE EITHER FROM THE RECORD OF THE BANK OR OTHER WISE BY MAKING PROPER ENQUIRY WHICH THE AO IN THE INSTANT CASE FAILED TO CARRY OUT AND THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS INITIATED IN TH E INSTANT ITA NO.668 (ASR)/2014 ASST. YEAR: 2005-06 10 CASE SHROUD MANY DOUBTS, THEREFORE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY HESITATION TO CONFIRM THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) WHICH IS BASE D ON LOGIC REASONING, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE DEPARTMENT STAND S DISMISSED. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE/DEPA RTMENT STANDS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 31.10.2017. SD/- SD/- (T. S. KAPOOR) (N.K.CHOUDHRY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 31.10.2017. /PK/ PS. COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: (1) THE ASSESSEE: (2) THE (3) THE CIT(A), (4) THE CIT, (5) THE SR DR, I.T.A.T., TRUE COPY BY ORDER