Summary
The assessee challenged its assessment because a scrutiny notice sent within time to its PAN-database address reached it only later after relocation. The alleged earlier intimation to the Assessing Officer was unproved, and the PAN address had not been updated. The Court held the timely notice sufficient in these circumstances, set aside the jurisdictional annulment and remanded the other assessment grounds for merits consideration.
Issues
- Whether the timely notice sent to the unchanged PAN-database address invalidated the assessment because actual service occurred later.
Held
- The assessee failed to produce or prove its alleged change-of-address letter. Filing Form 18 with the Registrar of Companies did not constitute intimation to the Assessing Officer; absent departmental intimation and a PAN update, use of the database address was justified. (¶¶ 6.1, 7)
- Merely stating a new address in an electronically filed return did not discharge the responsibility to specifically intimate the Department and update the PAN database from which automated scrutiny notices were generated. (¶¶ 7, 8)
- On these facts, issuance and dispatch of the section 143(2) notice within the prescribed period constituted sufficient compliance, and later actual service did not justify annulling the assessment. The remaining grounds had not been adjudicated and required remand. (¶¶ 6.1, 9, 10)
Result
The Revenue’s appeal was allowed without costs. The High Court, Tribunal and CIT (Appeals) orders were set aside, and the appeal was remanded to CIT (Appeals) for decision on the other grounds on merits in accordance with law.