SATNAM SINGH Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been preferred by the assessee under s. 260A of the IT Act, 1961 (in short, 'the Act') against the order raise following substantial questions of law :

(2.) THE AO issued notice under s. 148 of the Act. Since service could not be effected in normal course, the same was served by affixation at last known address i.e. residential address of the assessee. Thereafter, reassessment was made under s. 144 of the Act and investment of Rs. 7 lacs in purchase of house by the assessee was treated to be investment from undisclosed sources. On appeal, the CIT(A) accepted the explanation of the assessee, after holding the reassessment to be valid. The Tribunal held that affixation was not in presence of two persons and thus, notice itself was bad. After recording this finding, the matter was remanded to the AO for passing a fresh order, after giving opportunity to the assessee, after duly serving him in accordance with law.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the appellant submits that if notice was improper, nothing survived. In any case, there was no occasion to remand the case when the CIT(A) had upheld the plea of the assessee on merits and the Tribunal did not set aside the said finding. Reliance has been placed upon judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. Thayaballi Mulla Jeevaji Kapasi (Decd.) (1967) 66 ITR 147 (SC), to submit that absence of proper notice would vitiate all the proceedings.