Allowing the petition, the Court held that the sanction under section 151(ii) ought to have been obtained from the Principal Chief Commissioner when the notice under section 148A(b) had been issued beyond the period of three years. Though the Department had the new address of the assessee in the return of income filed, the notice was sent to the assessee’s old address. There was no proof of the service of notice under section 148A(b) dated March 20, 2022. Before issuing the notice under section 148A(b) it was imperative for the Assessing Officer to have checked if there was a change in address of the assessee. The effect of non-service was that the assessee did not get an opportunity to respond to the notice. Consequently, the notice under section 148A(b) and the proceedings thereafter were void. The notice under section 148A(b), the order under section 148A(d) were set aside on account of jurisdictional error, i. e., for want of service and consequently, for non-compliance with the provisions of the Act. The notice under section 148 was quashed and set aside. The Assessing Officer was given liberty to proceed with the reassessment after issuance of notice and providing the assessee a hearing after a response was filed. Relied on CIT v. Eshaan Holding (P.) Ltd (2012)) 25 taxmann.com 99/344 ITR 541 ( Delhi)(HC),CIT v. Avtar Singh (2008) 304 ITR 333 ( P&H)) (HC ) (AY. 2018-19)
Chitra Supekar (Mrs.) v. ITO [2023] 149 taxmann.com 26 / 292 Taxman 511 / 453 ITR 530 / 332 CTR 374 (Bom.)(HC)
S. 151 : Reassessment – Service of notice – Return submitted giving new address — Notice sent to old address — No proper service of notice — Notice and reassessment proceedings not valid – Sanction for issue of notice – After expiry of three years – Approval of Principal Commissioner (PCIT) is not valid – Approval is required from Principal Chief Commissioner (PCCIT) – Order was quashed. [S. 147, 148, 148A(b), 148A(d), 149(1)(a), 151(iii), Art. 226]