Notice not containing complete address of assessee but his general location is not valid: ITAT

Case Details: Smt. Santosh v. ITO - [2021] 132 taxmann.com 86 (Delhi - Trib.)

Judiciary  and Counsel Details

• • Smt. Diva Singh, Judicial Member
  • Amar Pal, Adv. for the Appellant. 
  • R.K. Gupta, Sr. DR for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

The instant appeal was filed by the assessee, challenging the reassessment order passed by the Assessing Officer. The assessee submitted that the AO never served her notice, and hence the order passed by him may be set aside.

As per the AO’s record, the assessee submitted that the notice was sent at the address mentioned as Smt. Santosh, Najafgarh, New Delhi (India). However, the correct address of the assessee was Smt. Santosh, W/o Ashok Kumar, RZ-A-1-30, Dharmpura Ex. Najafgarh, New Delhi. A Notice sent to an incomplete address could not be said to be a valid notice in the eyes of the law, and thus assessment order was liable to be set aside.

ITAT Held

The Delhi Tribunal has held that notice issued merely mentioning the name of the assessee and the general location in the city can by no standards be said to be a valid notice in the eyes of the law. The specific address needs to be mentioned, which in the facts of the present case is Smt. Santosh, W/o Ashok Kumar, RZ-A-1-30, Dharmpura Ex. Najafgarh, New Delhi and not Smt. Santosh Najafgarh, New Delhi.

Any notice issued casually and carelessly is a mechanical exercise in futility. Such an act glaringly demonstrates that no efforts were made to ensure that a valid notice was issued to the assessee. It is mandatory that the issuance of the notice being a serious and responsible duty, necessarily needs to be performed taking reasonable care and making diligent efforts to ensure that the notice issued is duly served upon the person intended. A simple exercise of mentioning a blatantly incomplete address cannot be said to be an exercise performed with due diligence and care.

A generalistic notice without mentioning the complete and correct address of the assessee cannot be said to be a valid notice in the eyes of the law. Thus, the matter was to be remanded to address the jurisdictional challenge and after that proceed to decide the issue on merits.