IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 
 . 
  20.10.2008 
.
 Present:        Ms P. L. Bansal for the Appellant. 
 Mr Salil Aggarwal with Mr Prakash Kumar 
 for the Respondent. 
.
 +  ITA 1203/2008 
.
 This appeal pertains to the assessment year 2001-2002 and is directed 
 against the order dated 15.02.2008 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 
 in ITA 4828/Del/2004  The only issue that is sought to be raised in this appeal 
 pertains to the question of notice under Section 147/148 of the Income Tax Act, 
 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ?said Act?). 
 The assessment had been re-opened and an assessment order had been framed. 
 Being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of 
 Income Tax (Appeals), which was also dismissed.  Before the Tribunal, the 
 assessee raised the point of jurisdiction inasmuch as according to the assessee 
 no notice under Section 148 had been issued/ served upon the assessee and, 
 therefore, all subsequent proceedings including the framing of the re-assessment 
.
.
 order, according to the assessee, were liable to be set aside.  The Tribunal 
 permitted the assessee to take the additional plea before it inasmuch as it was 
 a jurisdictional plea which went to the root of the matter.  After examining the 
 issue on facts, the Tribunal concluded that there was no service of notice on 
 the assessee under Section 148.  Consequently, the Tribunal held that the 
 assessment made under Section 147/ 143(3) was bad in law and the same was liable 
 to be quashed. 
 We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the 
 counsel for the respondent, who is present on advance notice.  We find that the 
 factual position is that no notice whatsoever was served on the assessee prior 
 to the re-opening of the assessment proceedings.  Proceedings under Section 147 
 of the said Act cannot be initiated without the service of notice as provided in 
 Section 148 of the said Act.  The service of notice is a pre-condition for 
 framing an assessment order under Section 147.  The learned counsel for the 
 appellant sought to place reliance on the provisions of Section 292 BB of the 
 said Act which has been introduced with effect from 01.04.2008.  However, we 
 feel that no reliance on that provision can be placed for two reasons.  The 
 first reason being that the said provision is not applicable to the assessment 
 year 2001-2002.  The second reason being that this argument was not at all being 
 raised before the Tribunal.  In fact, the argument could not have been raised 
 before the Tribunal because the amendment itself was introduced subsequent to 
 the passing of the order, which is impugned herein. 
 For all these reasons, we feel that no substantial question of law arises 
 for our consideration. The appeal is dismissed. 
.
.
 BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J 
.
.
.
 RAJIV SHAKDHER, J 
 October 20, 2008 
 SR 
.
.
 20