CIT Vs. SUNIL KUMAR CHHABRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order shall dispose of ITA Nos. 85 and 287 of 2011 preferred by the revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for brevity, 'the Act'), against the order(s) dated 10.9.2010 and 15.6.2011 respectively, passed by the Income tax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar Bench, Amritsar (for brevity, 'the Tribunal') because common question of law and facts are involved in these appeals.

(2.) FACTS of these appeals may first be noticed. ITA No. 85 of 2011:

(3.) THE assessee-respondent preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Jalandhar, against the order dated 19.12.2008, inter alia, raising the ground that the Assessing Officer has exceeded the jurisdiction under Section 143(2) of the Act because the notice dated 26.10.2007, issued under Section 143(2) of the Act, was sent to an address at which the assessee- respondent was not available. Therefore, no presumption of service of notice upon the assessee-respondent, under Section 143(2) of the Act, within the period of limitation of 12 months of the end of the month in which the return was filed, could be drawn. On 13.11.2009, the CIT (Appeals), Jalandhar, allowed the appeal by holding that for assuming jurisdiction to pass an assessment order under Section 143(3) of the Act, service has to be effected by the Assessing Officer within 12 months of the end of the month in which the return was filed. The CIT (Appeals), Jalandhar, set aside the order dated 19.12.2008, passed by the Assessing Officer (A-2).