IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 
 . 
 . 
 . 
   ITA 1/2012  
 . 
 . 
 . 
 CIT            ..... Appellant 
 . 
 Through Mr. N. P. Sahni and Mr. Ruches Sinha, Advocates 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 versus 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 MASCOMPTEL INDIA LTD       ..... Respondent 
 . 
 Through Mr. S. Krishnan, Adocate 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 CORAM: 
 . 
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA 
 . 
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 O R D E R 
 . 
   04.01.2012 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 This appeal by the revenue under Section 260 A (1) of the Income 
 Tax Act, 1961 impungs the order dated 17.06.2011 passed by the Income Tax 
 Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal for short) in the case of Mascomptel India 
 Ltd.   The appeal related to the Assessment year 2006-07. 
 . 
 2. The requirement to serve a notice under Section 143(2) of the Act 
 was examined in CIT Vs. Lunar Diamonds Ltd. (2006) 281 ITR 1 (Delhi) and 
 it was held that notice under the said section must be served on the 
 assessee within the time stipulated in the proviso.  In case the notice 
 was not served within the said time limit the assessment order passed 
 would be null and void. 
 . 
 3. In the present case the assessing officer had issued a notice under 
 Section 143(2) dated 11.10.2007 to the respondent/assessee.  The said 
 notice was addressed at 44-Rajendra Bhawan, Rajendra Place, New Delhi. 
 The notice could not be served and was received back with the remark of 
 the postal authority that ?no such person exists at the address 
 mentioned?.  An Inspector was deputed to serve the notice personally but 
 he also reported that the company was not available at the address.  The 
 Assessing Officer, thereafter served the notice by affixture.   Date of 
 notice of the affixture is however not stated in the assessment order. 
 The assessment was made exparte/best judgment assessment order was 
 passed. 
 . 
 4. The CIT (Appeals) and the Tribunal have held that the aforesaid 
 service by the affixture was not valid.  The findings of the CIT 
 (Appeals) and the Tribunal are that the assessee had mentioned a 
 different address in the return of income tax filed for the assessment 
 year in question.  In the return of income tax the address mentioned was 
 1-GF, AGCR Enclave, Karkardooma, Delhi.  They have held that the assessee 
 was earlier functioning from  44-Rajendra Bhawan, Rajendra Place, New 
 Delhi and had shifted from the said address in 2001.  It has also come on 
 record that the TDS Officer (who was also the Assessing Officer) had 
 issued notice dated 01.10.2007 at I-GF, AGCR Enclave, Karkardooma, Delhi 
 The said address was also mentioned in the balance sheet, profit and loss 
 account, tax audit report as well as the assessment order under Section 
 143 (3) dated 30.02.2007 for the assessment year 2005-06 i.e. the 
 immediately preceding assessment year. 
 . 
 5. Aforesaid facts speaks for themselves.  No attempt was made to 
 serve the respondent-assessee at the correct address which was available 
 with the department and in fact stated in the return of the income for 
 the assessment year 2006-07.  Subsequent, attempt to serve another notice 
 under Section 143(2) at 1-GF, AGCR Enclave, Karkardooma, Delhi in 
 November, 2008, long after expiry of the limitation period prescribed  by 
 the proviso, cannot help the revenue. 
 . 
 6. The appeal is dismissed. 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 SANJIV KHANNA,J 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 R.V.EASWAR, J 
 . 
 JANUARY  04, 2012 
 . 
 b 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 10# 
 . 
 $ 
 .