VEENA DEVI KARNANI Vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The assessee herein questions an Assessment Order dated 13.02.2015 for A.Y. 2010-11 and all consequent proceedings. This assessment was completed under Sec. 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, upon reassessment notice issued in this regard on 24.12.2013. The brief facts are that the assessee was a resident of WZ 1110, Rani Bagh, Shakur Basti, Delhi-110034. Her PAN returns for A.Y. 2010-11 (PAN No. AAGPK 5730M) also disclosed an e-mail ID. The return was processed and intimation received by the assessee in this regard. Subsequently, it appears that the assessee shifted her residence for the A.Y. 2011-12, under the same PAN number, she filed the returns in Form ITR-V disclosing the changed address to be Flat No.68, First Floor, Sandesh Vihar, Pitampura, Delhi. The same e-mail ID was reflected in this return as well. The concerned Assessing Officer [ITO Ward 25(2)] also continued to be same as reflected in this return. This position continued in respect of succeeding Assessment Years (A.Y. 2012-13 dated 31.12.2012 and in A.Y. 2013-14 dated 31.12.2013). The AO claiming that material information was not disclosed and that reassessment was necessary, issued notice on 24.12.2013 at the old address in the following terms:

(2.) Apparently, the Assessing Officer addressed a series of notices, to the assessee in the old address under Sec. 140(3) (1) (i.e. on 23.02.2014, 23.04.2014, 19.08.2014 and 30.12.2014). Since the assessee did not and could not respond because the notices were sent to the old address and therefore, she was in the dark. A final notice was issued on 15.01.2015 proposing to pass an ex parte assessment order under Sections 144/147. Further, the assessment was completed on 13.02.2015. It was much later i.e. upon issuance of an attachment order to satisfy the demand, raised by virtue of the re-assessment under Sections 144/148 (by an order dated 08.05.2018) that the assessee became aware of these findings. The assessee urges that the entire reassessment proceedings were a nullity because the notice was never served upon her and rather the AO instead of proceeding to comply with the provisions with respect of the notice (i.e. Rule 127 by examining the PAN Data base or the subsequent year returns to ascertain the correct address) merely dug out the old address and proceeded to complete the assessment.

(3.) Learned counsel for the Revenue (which has filed a counter affidavit) relies upon Sec. 292B. It is submitted besides that the annual information reports with respect to non-PAN transactions reported by the banks and other agencies, discloses list of account holders. It is stated that from that list the assessee's name and particulars were extracted and notices issued and therefore, the AO cannot be faulted for the same.