Allowing the petition, the Court held that the sanction under section\u00a0151(ii)\u00a0ought to have been obtained from the Principal Chief Commissioner when the notice under section\u00a0148A(b)\u00a0had 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\u2019s old address. There was no proof of the service of notice under section\u00a0148A(b)\u00a0dated March 20, 2022. Before issuing the notice under section\u00a0148A(b)\u00a0it 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\u00a0148A(b)\u00a0and the proceedings thereafter were void. The notice under section\u00a0148A(b), the order under section\u00a0148A(d)\u00a0were 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\u00a0148\u00a0was 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.\u00a0Eshaan Holding (P.) Ltd (2012)) 25 taxmann.com 99\/344 ITR 541 ( Delhi)(HC),CIT\u00a0v.\u00a0Avtar Singh (2008) 304 ITR 333 ( P&H)) (HC ) (AY. 2018-19)<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
S. 151 : Reassessment \u2013 Service of notice – Return submitted giving new address \u2014 Notice sent to old address \u2014 No proper service of notice \u2014 Notice and reassessment proceedings not valid – Sanction for issue of notice – After expiry of three years \u2013 Approval of Principal Commissioner (PCIT) is not valid \u2013 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] <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-35324","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-income-tax-act"],"acf":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p9S2Rw-9bK","jetpack-related-posts":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/35324","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=35324"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/35324\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":35325,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/35324\/revisions\/35325"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=35324"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=35324"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=35324"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}