Tribunal held that there is neither any material on records nor brought to our notice during the course of hearing to assume for a moment that the duly appointed agent of the Firm was avoiding service and was keeping out of the way for being served with notice and thus there was reasons to believe that notice upon him could not be served in ordinary course, warranting recourse to service by Affixture. Thus, essential conditions of Rule-17 of Order-V of the Civil Procedure Code are not fulfilled and accordingly the order was quashed . Valid service of notice is not mere procedural requirement , it is a condition precedent to validity of any assessment or reassessment . If notice issued is shown as invalid , subsequent proceedings shall be illegal . Referred CIT v Ramendra Nath Ghosh (1971) 82 ITR 888 (SC ), Jagannath Prasad v. CIT (1977) 110 ITR 27 (All) (HC) Kunj Behari v. ITO (1983) 139 ITR 73 (P&H) (HC) Suresh Kumar Sheetlani v.ITO ( 2018 ) 96 taxmann.com 401./ 257 Taxman 338 ( All ) (HC) , Auram Jewellery Exports (P) Ltd v. ACIT (2017) 88 taxman.com 633 /54 ITR 1 (Delhi) ( Trib) . (AY. 2009 – 10 )
K.P. Cold Storage v .ITO ( 2019 ) 201 TTJ 649/ ( 2020) 189 DTR 385 (Agra)(Trib)
S. 148 : Reassessment – Notice – Valid service of notice is not mere procedural requirement , it is a condition precedent to validity of any assessment or reassessment – If notice issued is shown as invalid , subsequent proceedings shall be illegal – Service by affixture – Reassessment was quashed as the service of notice was not proper as per the law as per Order V, Rule 12, Rule 17, rule 19, Rule 20(1) and Order III, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 . [ S. 147, 149, 282 ]