S. 148 : Reassessment-Validity of notice-Service of notice-Notice under section 148 affixed at an unrelated locked premises without establishing any connection of assessee with the premises-Departmental record itself indicated that assessee did not reside at the said address-Subsequent notices also returned with endorsement “LEFT”-Assessee objected to non-service before completion of assessment-Deemed service under section 292BB not applicable-Reassessment proceedings without valid service of jurisdictional notice under section 148 were invalid and assessment was quashed-Additions under sections 69C and 68 consequently deleted. [S. 68, 69C, 131, 144, 147, 282, 292BB, Rule 127.]
The assessee challenged the reassessment on the ground that notice under section 148 dated 27-03-2019 was never validly served. The notice sent to the Bandra address remained unserved and the subsequent affixture was made on a locked room at Sonam Apartment, Bhiwandi, without any material establishing that the assessee resided, carried on business or had any connection with the premises. The Department’s own record indicated that the assessee did not reside there. It was only when the correct Vile Parle address and email were subsequently traced that the final show-cause notice dated 22-11-2019 was actually delivered, to which the assessee immediately responded and objected to the disputed PAN and earlier proceedings. The Tribunal held that affixture at an unrelated premises could not constitute valid service and that the objection raised before completion of assessment attracted the proviso to section 292BB. In the absence of valid service of the jurisdictional notice under section 148, the Assessing Officer could not assume jurisdiction to complete the reassessment under section 147. The assessment under section 144 read with section 147 was accordingly quashed and the additions of Rs.1,27,62,500 under section 69C and Rs.18,85,000 under section 68 could not survive..(AY. 2012-13) (ITA No. 1799/Mum/2025 dt. 21-09-2026)
Ravi Dilip Waghela v. ITO (Mum.)(Trib.) [www.itatonline.org]
[Coram : Hon’ble Shri Amit Shukla, JM & Hon’ble Shri Arun Khodpia, AM]