IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K., JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Years : 2010-11 to 2016-17 Shri H. Srinivas Reddy, The Assistant Halanayakanahalli, Commissioner of Vathur Hobli, Income Tax, Bengaluru – 560 035. Central Circle – 1(2), PAN: AHHPS8800Q Vs. Bangalore.

APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Hemasundar P, CA Revenue by : Shri Muthu Shankar, CIT-DR Date of Hearing : 01-07-2025 Date of Pronouncement : 01-09-2025

ORDER

PER BENCH These are the set of 7 appeals filed at the instance of the assessee arising out of common order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) -II, Bengaluru (hereinafter refereed as the learned CIT(A)) dated 21^st January

2025 involving assessment years 2010-11 to 2016-17.

2. First, we take up ITA No. 623/Bang/2025, an appeal by the assessee for A.Y. 2010-11 as lead case.

3. The assessee has raised multiple grounds of appeal challenging the validity of the assessment order under section 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act. Among the various grounds of appeal on the question of validity of the assessment, one of the grounds raised by the assessee is that the assessment order is barred by time.

4. The relevant facts are that the assessee is an individual and Ex-BBMP employee who claimed to be engaged in agricultural activities. The assessee was subject to search proceedings under section 132 of the Act carried out as on 28th January 2016. Consequence to the search, the assessment proceedings under section 153A of the Act was initiated for A.Ys. 2010-11 to

2016-17.

4.1 The AO i.e. ACIT central circle (1)(1) Bengaluru, during the assessment proceedings issued various notices requiring the assessee to furnish certain details and explanation which were duly complied with by the assessee. The assessment was getting barred by time as on 31st December 2017 as per the provision of section 153B of the Act.

4.2 The assessee claimed that he did not receive the assessment order. Accordingly, the assessee through the authorized representative inquired about the status of assessment proceeding vide letter dated 9^th February 2018. In response to the letter, the assessee received a reply from the office of ACIT central circle 1(1) Bengaluru dated 19th February 2018 that the assessment was passed dated 29th December and the same was served on Shri Munichandra K as on 9^th January 2018 by the notice server as per the instruction of assessee’s son. The AO also attached copy of the assessment order, demand notice, and document along with the impugned reply. The impugned reply was received by the assessee as on 20^th February 2018.

5. Against the impugned assessment order the assessee filed appeal before the learned CIT(A) -II Bengaluru.

5.1 The assessee before the learned CIT(A) submitted that the assessment order was served on to him only on 20th February 2018. The department claimed that the same was served on 9th January 2018 to a person to whom the assessee does not know and do not connect to him in any manner. The assessee further submitted that the assessment order contained wrong address whereas all the communication and notices during the assessment proceeding were issued /served at the correct address. The assessee accordingly contended that assessment order was not served in the prescribed time and thereby the order is barred by limitation and not maintainable under the Act.

6. The learned CIT(A) forwarded the contention of the assessee to the AO for remand report. The AO vide remand report dated 6^th July 2023 submitted that that the order of assessment along with the demand notice had in fact been completed and dispatched on 30.12.2017 by speed post, vide acknowledgement number EK391437145IN, and thus had left the control of the office before the statutory limitation date. It was explained that though the cover was returned undelivered, the order was later physically served on 09.01.2018 by the departmental notice server upon Sri Munic