Ongoing reassessment proceedings must be completed before initiating fresh reassessment, as established by relevant case laws.

1. These four appeals by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’) are against the common order dated 28th January 2010 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (‘ITAT’) in ITA No. 3532/Del/2009 for the Assessment Year (‘AY’) 2003-04, ITA No. 3533/Del/2009 for AY 2004-05, ITA No. 1502/Del/2009 for AY 2001-02 and ITA No. 3531/Del/2009 for AY 2002-03.

2. By the order dated 28th July 2014, this Court framed the following two substantial questions of law for determination:

“1. Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (‘ITAT’) was right in nullifying the assessment orders on the ground that they were barred by limitation?

2. Whether the order of the Tribunal is perverse as the Assessee had never accepted service of notice under Section 147/148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 23.09.2005 and had claimed that the said notice was never served or received by him?”

3. The facts in brief are that the Assessee was engaged in the business of commission agent of food grains under the name and style of M/s. Rahul Enterprises as its proprietor. The Assessee filed its regular returns of income for AY 2000-01 to 2004-05 as under:-

Assessment Year	Date of filing return	Income
2000-01	30-10-2000	Rs. 1,41,300/-
2001-02	22-10-2001	Rs. 1,45,603/-
2002-03	28-10-2002	Rs. 1,67,378/-
2003-04	06-11-2003	Rs. 1,97,590/-
2004-05	01/11/2004	Rs. 1,11,910/-

    4. A survey under Section 133A of the Act was conducted by the Director of Investigation, New Delhi on 12th July 2004 and the statement of the Assessee was recorded. Certain documents in the form of loose papers found during the search were also impounded. On the basis of the information so gathered, the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle initiated re-assessment proceedings under Section 147 of the Act by issuing notice on 23rd September 2005 by speed post. The notice which was so issued was not returned undelivered to the Department.

5. In response to the notice issued on 23rd September 2005 the authorised representative of the Assessee appeared before the Assessing Officer (‘AO’) on 16th March 2006 along with a vakalatnama and a letter requesting the AO to furnish photostat copies of the documents impounded at the time of the search. The case was adjourned to 20th March 2006. On 4th April 2006, a photocopy machine was arranged for making copies of the impounded documents. By a letter dated 18th April 2006, the AO informed the Assessee through his counsel of the date of hearing fixed for AYs 2001-02 to 2005-06 on 24th April 2006. In this letter it was mentioned that enough adjournments had already been granted and that the assessment proceedings for the AYs upto 2004-05 are going to be barred by limitation that year itself.

6. The counsel for the Assessee, however, pleaded that he did not have enough time to prepare for the case hearing and sought 15 more days’ time. By the letter dated 26th April 2006, the AO adjourned the date of hearing to 5th May 2006. Summons was also issued on 26th April 2006 under Section 131 of the Act requiring the Assessee to produce the complete books of accounts and documents related to his business for the AYs 2001-02 and 2005-06. By a letter dated 3rd May 2006, the counsel for the Assessee sought another 20 days’ time to complete the preparation of books of accounts on the basis of the seized material.

7. A notice under Section 142(1) of the Act along with a questionnaire dated 21st September 2006 for the aforementioned AYs were issued and served at the same address on Smt. Geeta Garg, the wife of the Assessee. At the same address at which speed post notice was issued i.e. D-16/406, Sector-7, Rohini, notice under Section 143 (2) was issued on 31st October 2006 by the Income Tax Officer. The said notice was to inform the Assessee of the hearing o