IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH, ‘B’: NEW DELHI BEFORE MS. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.8284/Del/2018 [Assessment Year: 2010-11]

Income Tax Officer, Shri Jai Singh, Ward-2, Aayakar Bhawan, S/o-Shri Chandgi Ram Saini, Rohtak Vs H. No.2530/1, Saini Anandpura, Behind Gaur School, Rohtak, PAN-BFPPS1050D Revenue Assessee Assessee by Shri Navin Gupta, Adv.

Revenue by Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 13.01.2025 Date of Pronouncement 11.04.2025

ORDER

PER BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH, AM, This appeal filed by the Revenue is directed against the order dated

31.10.2018 of the Ld. CIT(A), Rohtak, relating to Assessment 2010-11 arising out of order u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act dated 21.03.2016 passed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Rohtak.

2. Brief facts of the case:- In this case information was received from office of the Pr. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, North West Region, Aaykar Bhawan, Sector-17E, Chandigarh in respect of total cash deposit amounting to Rs.1,99,13,900/-. On the basis of the information, the then DCIT, Rohtak Circle, Rohtak recorded the reasons for re-opening the case u/s 147 of the IT Act, 1961 and issued notice u/s 148 of the IT Act, 1961 dated 31.03.2015. The AO also noted that the assessee had not filed its return of income for the year under consideration. According to the AO, as the assessee did not appear during the assessment proceedings, he issued notice u/s 274 r.w.s. 271 of the Act along with show cause letter sent through speed-post on 12.02.2016 fixing the case for 18.02.2016. The AO noted in the assessment order that the assessee neither attended in response to the said notice nor filed any reply and therefore he completed the assessment u/s 144 r.w.s. 147of the Act on 21.03.2016 by treating the cash deposit as undisclosed income of the assessee and an addition of Rs.1,99,13,900/- was made by the AO. During the appellate proceedings the assessee contested that no notice u/s 148 of the Act was served on him and no reasons were given for reopening of assessment proceedings and therefore the proceedings were not as per law and without jurisdiction. On merits also the addition was challenged in view of the cash flow statement and source of deposit explained by the assessee. Additional evidences given by the assessee was under Rule 46A of the I.T. Rules were sent to the AO for his comments. Vide remand report's dated 03.01.2018 and 20.09.2018 the AO stated that proceedings u/s 148 of the Act was in accordance with law and notice u/s 148 of the Act was duly served by affixture upon the assessee.

2.1. The ld. CIT(A) observed on the basis of the records and two remand reports of the AO wherein it was admitted by the AO that the notice dated 31.03.2015 could not be served by post and the AO asked the Inspector to serve the said notice by affixture. The Ld. CIT(A) noted that the AO has not been able to submit any proof of service through affixture and proof of signature of witness on the said notice served by Affixture during the appellate/remand proceedings. The Ld. CIT(A) thereafter relied upon various case laws and held that in view of the fact as discussed in her order, as there was no evidence of service of notice u/s 148 of the Act by affixture, as proposed by the AO when the notice issued on 31.03.2015 came back unserved, the re-assessment made u/s 144/147 of the Act was invalid and void. Accordingly, she did not adjudicate the appeal on its merits.

3. Aggrieved with the said order, the Revenue is in appeal before us and has raised the following ground of appeal:-

“The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on the facts in treating the reassessment made under section 144/ 147 of the Income Tax Act. 1961 invalid and void when the notice under section148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 31.03.2015 was sent by post on 31.03.2015, and subsequently served through affixture by the Inspector who put his signature on the affixture.”

4. The Ld. DR sub