IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR BEFORE DR. M. L. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. UDAYAN DASGUPTA, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 307/Asr/2023 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Mandeep Malli Vs. ACIT (In situ), W/o Sukhvir Singh Khosa Nakodar, Nakodar Vill. Kotla Suraj Mal, Teh. Shahkot, Jalandhar [PAN: AZVPM7128D]

(Appellant) (Respondent)

Appellant by : Sh. Rohit Kapoor, CA &

Sh. V. S. Aggarwal, ITP Respondent by : Sh. Rajiv Wadhera, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 01.05.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 07.05.2024

ORDER

Per Dr. M. L. Meena, AM:

The captioned appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT(A) National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 01.09.2023 in respect of Assessment Year: 2010-11 which is arising out of the Assessment Order passed dated 30.11.2016 by the Income Tax Officer, Ward Nakodar u/s 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 challenging therein validity of assessment order passed by u/s 144/47 as bad in law in view of the invalid service of notice u/s 148 of the Act as per procedure laid down as per Rule 17 of CPC Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

2. At the outset, the ld. counsel for the assessee has submitted that the notice u/s 148 dated 27.03.2017 issued by Income Tax Officer, Ward Nakodar has been stated to be issued on 15.03.2017 and served on the assessee by way of affixture through inspector on 27.03.2017 without either presence or even signature of two independent witnesses of the neighborhood as per the procedure referred in section 282 read with Rule 12, 17 and Rule 19 of Order (v) of Civil Procedure Code, 1908. The copy of affixture order is placed on record (APB pg. 5). The ld. counsel argued that the said notice dated 27.03.2017 cannot be issued and served on 20.03.2017 i.e. one week before, by way affixture through inspector and in absence of two independent witnesses, the service of such notice is invalid as per procedure laid down in section 282 of the CPC, 1908 as above. The ld. counsel submitted that the appellant challenged the assessment order before the ld. CIT(A) that the assessment order passed by the AO is bad in law raised vide ground no. 3 which remain un-adjudicated. The counsel has contended that the non-service of notice u/s 148 is purely legal issue, renders the assessment orders invalid in absence of even improper service of notice. He contended that the ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate the merits of the case and has not made efforts to analyze the fact regarding the service of notice and validity of the assessment order. In support, he placed reliance on the judgment delivered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Ramendra Nath Ghosh [1971] 82 ITR

888 (SC) and submitted that the Apex Court observed that where the report of the serving officer did not mention names and addresses of person who identified place of business or assessees nor he mentioned in his report or in affidavit filed by him that he personally knew place of business of assessees, service of notice must be held to be not in accordance with law, and, therefore, assessee could not be said to have been given proper opportunity to put forward their case as there was not a proper service.

3. Per contra, the ld. DR stands by the impugned order. However, he could not controvert the contention raised by the ld. AR regarding invalid service of notice u/s 148 by way of an affixture as per procedure laid down as per Rules 20 or order (v) of CPC.

4. We have heard both the sides, perused the material on record, impugned order and case law cited before us. It is admitted fact on record that the notice u/s 148 was dated 27.03.2017 (APB pg. 2), however, the AO has stated that the notice was issued on 15.03.2017 and served upon the assessee on 20.03.2017. In our view, it is beyond human probabilities to issue and serve notice a week before a date mentioned in the alleged notice issued u/s 148 (APB pg. 2). For reference, the alleged notice is reproduced here under:

5. Fro