(1.) NOTICE under section 148 of the Income -tax Act, 1961 (for short, the "Act"), was issued by the assessing officer on 29 -1 -2004. It was sent at 438, Mount Kailash Towers, East of Kailash, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the "old address"). By that time, the assessee had shifted from the said address to N -118, Panchsheel Park, New Del 1 (hereinafter referred to as the "new address"). Return for the assessment year 2003 -04 was also filed on 28 -11 -2003, i.e. before the issue of the aforesaid notice on 29 -1 -2004, showing the new address. However, not a single communication was sent at that address and further steps for serving the notice under section 148 of the Act were also taken showing the old address. The Commissioner of Income -tax (Appeals), in these circumstances, held that no valid notice was served upon the assessee under section 148 of the Act. The entire discussion in this behalf, in appeal, is summarized by the Income -tax Appellate Tribunal in para. 8 of its order, relevant portion whereof makes the following reading
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the Revenue argued that no doubt in the return filed on 28 -11 -2003, for the assessment year 2003 -04, on the first page new address is given, the assessee had also shown the old address in the annexure to the said return showing "computation of assessable income". However, learned counsel for the assessee had explained that the assessee had sold and disposed of the old premises at East of Kailash by a sale deed and even given the possession to the purchaser on September 3, 2003. Affidavit to that effect is filed along with the copy of the sale deed.
(3.) AFTER hearing the arguments at length and going through various documents, we gather the impression that it may be a case of bona fide mistake on the part of the assessing officer. However, a valuable right accrued to the respondent and, furthermore, when we find that the tax effect is only Rs. 4,13,210 (as per the CBDT circular, appeals with tax effect up to Rs. 4 lakhs are not to be filed). Going by these considerations, we are of the opinion that the aforesaid findings need no interference in the present appeal. Dismissed.