JUDGMENT

Rohit Ranjan Agarwal, J.

Heard Sri Suyash Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ashish Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for respondents No.1 and 2.

2. Proceedings for reassessment under section 148 of the INCOME TAX ACT was initiated by the Income Tax Department by invoking relevant provisions and issuing notice and an assessment order was passed on 27.3.2015. The dispute is for the assessment year 2007-08.

3. Sri Suyash Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that no notice under section 148 of the INCOME TAX ACT was issued to the Assessee. He further contended that against the assessment order, the Assessee had preferred revision under section 264 of the INCOME TAX ACT where a ground was taken in the memo of revision that notice under section 148 of the INCOME TAX ACT dated 27.3.2014 was not validly served. He further contends that the Revisional Authority without venturing into the grounds so raised by the Assessee petitioner, had rejected the revision. He contends that it was mandatory for the Revisional Authority to have decided the grounds so raised in the revision.

4. Per contra, Sri Ashish Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for the respondents invited the attention of the Court to the findings recorded by the Assessing Authority wherein categorical Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:4973 findings has been recorded by the Assessing Authority that the notice was served through speed post as well as by affixture but the Assessee did not turn up. He invited the attention of the Court to paras 3.4, 3.5 and 3.6 of the assessment order, which is extracted hereasunder :

"3.4 Again, notice under section 142(1) dated 23/02/2015 was issued fixing the date of hearing on 04/03/2015 but again no compliance.

3.5 Inspector of this office vide his report dated 10/03/2015 intimated that at present, assessee is posted as Customs Superintendent, at Nepalganj Road, Baharaich, (U.P.). Accordingly, notices under section 142(1) dated 10/03/2015 were issued at the address of residence (i.e. at Shankar Sadan, Near: Microwave Station, P.O. Railway, Kasya Road, Gorakhpur) and office address at Bahraich but these notices were returned unserved with postal remarks as "Pavak ke gharwalaon ne lene se mana kiya......." "Praptkarta yehan maujud nahin hai" etc.

3.6 However, when another notice under section 142(1) dated 10/03/2015, fixing the date of hearing on 16/03/2015 was served by affixure at Shankar Sadan, Gorakhpur on 13/03/2015 by the Inspector, assessee's letter dated 18/03/2015 was received in this office on 20/03/2015 intimating that assessee has received a call from Shankar Sadan, Gorakpur, (a proof enough to establish that persons of both places are well acquainted) and requesting for another date which could not be allowed at this juncture when the case is to be barred by limitation on 31/03/2015. In fact to move application so late for fixing another date is merely a ploy to scuttle the assessment proceedings. Here, mention must be made that show cause notices under section 144 giving assessee a final opportunity of being heard with proposal of addition had already been issued on 19/03/2015 fixing the date of hearing on 26/03/2015 which were also received back unserved."

5. He further contends that the findings recorded by the Assessing Authority was not put to challenge by the Assessee before the Revisional Authority and once the finding has not been assailed, the Revisional Authority has not recorded any finding as to the service of notice.

6. After hearing the counsel for the respective parties and perusal of record I find that the assessment order dated 27.3.2015 takes note of the fact that the notice issued under section 1