Iapl/13/2020 Of Manoj Kumar Sharma ( v. Income Tax Officer Ward 2(2), Gautam Budh Nagar

Court No. - 7 Case :- INCOME TAX APPEAL No. - 13 of 2020 Appellant :- Manoj Kumar Sharma C-470, Beta-1, Greater Noida, Gautam Budha Nagar (Uttar Pradesh)-201308 (Pan No.BUFFPS6146D) Respondent :- Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(2), Gautam Budh Nagar, Room No.404, A-2d, 4[th] Floor, Sector-24, Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh – 201301Counsel for Appellant :- Chandra Bhan GuptaCounsel for Respondent :- Gaurav Mahajan Hon'ble Biswanath Somadder,J.Hon'ble Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava,J. 1.This appeal, under section 260-A of the Income Tax Act,1961, has been taken out in respect of a judgment and orderof the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench(S.M.C.), New Delhi, dated 3[rd] October, 2019. The appellanthas essentially tried to make out a case on two questions oflaw, which, according to the learned advocate appearing forthe appellant, are substantial questions of law. The questionsof law are as follows:- 1. “Whether there was no service of notice under section 148 ofthe Income Tax Act, 1961 ?the Income Tax Act, 1961 ? 2. Whether additional/fresh evidence was taken intoconsideration by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-I ?”consideration by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-I ?” 2.In our view, the two questions of law cannot be termedas “substantial questions of law”. The answer to the twoquestions, however, are clearly reflected in the order of theCommissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-I dated 11[th] May,2018, wherefrom the appellant preferred an appeal before thelearned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench (S.M.C.),New Delhi. 3.So far as the first question is concerned, the following paragraphs extracted from the order of the Commissioner ofIncome Tax (Appeals)-I will speak for itself:- “10. The appellant raised a ground that the address on whichthe notices were sent by the Ld. AO being “Manoj KumarSharma, Nai Abadi, Dadri, G.B. Nagar” was not the correctaddress as there could be more than one Manoj or ManojKumar or Manoj Kumar Sharma in Dadri and the post officemight have ended up serving the notices of the Ld. AO to anyone of those persons named Manoj. It was contended by theappellant that merely because the notices sent by the Ld. AOwere not returned by the postal authorities it cannot bepresumed that those notices stood served upon the appellantand the service of notice was complete in terms of theprovisions of law. Based upon such logic, the appellant hascontended that there was no service of notice u/s 148 andtherefore, the impugned assessment order was bad in law andliable to be deleted. 11. The ground taken by the appellant stands negated by theadmitted position of the appellant himself. 12. The appellant has stated in its reply to the report of the Ld.AO that the appellant came to know about the best judgmentassessment in its case only when it received the notice u/s 274of I.T. Act, 1961 asking it to show cause vide a penalty u/s271(1)(c) of I.T. Act, 1961 be not imposed on the appellant. Acopy of the said notice has been placed on the record of thisoffice under self authentication by the appellant. It is seen thatthe said notice vide F. No. ITO/W-2(2)/Noida/271(1)(c)/2017-18 dated 04.05.2017 file F. No./PAN/229/148 wasissued on the same address on which the Ld. AO has issuedearlier notices, i.e., Manoj Kumar Sharma, Nai Abadi, Dadri,G.B. Nagar. 13. Once the postal authorities have duly served the noticeissued by the Ld. AO upon the appellant on that address as on 12. The appellant has stated in its reply to the report of the Ld.AO that the appellant came to know about the best judgmentassessment in its case only when it received the notice u/s 274of I.T. Act, 1961 asking it to show cause vide a penalty u/s271(1)(c) of I.T. Act, 1961 be not imposed on the appellant. Acopy of the said notice has been placed on the record of thisoffice under self authentication by the appellant. It is seen thatthe said notice vide F. No. ITO/W-2(2)/Noida/271(1)(c)/2017-18 dated 04.05.2017 file F. No./PAN/229/148 wasissued on the same address on which the Ld. AO has issuedearlier notices, i.e., Manoj Kumar Sharma, Nai Abadi, Dadri,G.B. Nagar. 13. Once the postal authorities have duly served the noticeissued by the Ld. AO upon the appellant on that address as on May, 2017 there can be no ground unless proved otherwise toassume that postal authorities would not have been able toserve the notices issued by the Ld. AO upon the appellant onthat very address earlier, i.e., prior to the service of notice inMay 2017. As none of the notices were returned by the postalauthorities as unserved for want of complete or correct addressthe presumption of bonafide as obtaining in favour of the Statewould hold the ground. In any case, the appellant has receivedthe notices sent by the Ld. AO on that same address as late asMay 2017 and it cannot claim that the address was incorrector incomplete. 14. Therefore, in view of the admission of the appellant theclaim of the appellant that it did not receive the notices issuedby the Ld. AO because of the address on which the said noticeswere sent by the Ld. AO was either incomplete or incorrect isnot tenable.” 4.So far as the second question is concerned, the answer tothe same is at paragraph 8 of the said order of theCommissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-I dated 11[th] May,2018, which reads as follows:- “8. The Ld. AO by its report dated 26.03.2018 submitted itsresponse to the fresh evidence of the appellant and rejected thesame and recommended that the grounds raised by theappellant were neither maintainable nor acceptable in the eyesof the law and the appeal of the appellant deserved to bedismissed by this office.” 5.Both these issues were considered by the learnedTribunal while passing the judgment and order dated 3[rd]October, 2019, which is evident from a plain reading ofparagraph 5 of the said judgment and order dated 3[rd] October,2019. In order to avoid prolixity, we refrain from reproducingthe same. 6.As stated hereinbefore, we do not find any substantialquestion(s) of law involved in this matter. Rather, the issuesare essentially factual in nature. The appeal is, therefore, liableto be dismissed and stands dismissed accordingly.Order Date :- 18.2.2020Shahroz (Biswanath Somadder,J.) (Dr. Y.K. Srivastava,J.)