Section 147, 263 of Income Tax Act, 1961—In the instant case, the petitioner challenges a revisional order of CIT which upheld the reassessment order of the Assessment Officer made for the assessment year (AY) 2008-09.

Held that—The materials on record show that the petitioner had one PAN number; furthermore, it is not in dispute that he was served with proceedings relating to reassessment notice. According to his admission (in the averments in the revision petition) notice of assessment and notice of demand for the subsequent assessment years were received by him. These established that he was functioning at the address to which the reassessment notices (and hearing notices) were addressed.

In these circumstances, his claim that the process server’s file noting conclusively established that notice could not be served (due to his absence) and the defect alleged in the affixture (at the address) is insubstantial and unmerited. The revision petition admitted in clear terms that the reassessment order and subsequent demand notice, were received. In the circumstances, the argument that notice of reassessment and hearing notices were not received, rings hollow.
Undoubtedly, reassessment proceedings can be initiated and completed after notice to the assessee and granting opportunity to them. However, the facts of this case reveal that not only were the notices received, even the reassessment order was received (the revision petition admits as much) and the assessee did not care to appeal against it; concededly, he filed the revision petition after the period of limitation. Given these facts, the Commissioner cannot be faulted for rejecting the revision petition on the ground that there was no jurisdictional error.[JINDAL METAL CO. VERSUS PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI-21] [2018] [6] [ITCD Online][133] [DELHI HIGH COURT]