D. Karunakara Rao, A.M.:— This appeal filed by the Revenue on 2.3.2011 is against the order of the CIT (A)-21, Mumbai dated 23.12.2010. In this appeal, Revenue raised the following grounds which read as under:
“1.(i) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT (A) erred in holding that the assessment framed u/s 143(3) as invalid without appreciating that the notice u/s 143(2) dated 5.10.2007 for the assessment year 2006-07 had been issued and served before the 3 expiry of 12 months from the end of the month in which the return of income for the said assessment year had been filed by the assessee.
(ii) On the facts an in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT (A) failed to appreciate that the notice u/s 143(20 dated 5.10.2007 has been accepted in the old address of the assessee company at ICICI Towers, Bandra Kurla Complex by ICICI Bank Ltd., an associate concern on behalf of the assessee company well before the expiry of 12 months from the end of the month in which the return of income had been filed by the assessee.
(iii) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT (A) failed to appreciate that it only vide letter dated 11.11.2008 that ICICI Bank Ltd. had informed the Assessing Officer that the office of the assessee company is no longer situated in the premises of ICICI Bank Towers and they had been given to understand by the assessee company that the change of address has been communicated to the Income Tax Office and hence all correspondence pertaining to the assessee company should be served at the said address of the company.”
2. In this appeal, Revenue raised the objection against the conclusions drawn by the CIT (A) in connection with the issue of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act within the specified period of 12 months.
3. Before us, none appeared on behalf of the assessee to represent the case. Considering the issue involved in the grounds and the undisputed facts brought in by the Revenue Authorities in their orders, we find the appeal can be disposed of with the help of the Ld DR. At the outset, Ld DR mentioned the undisputed fact that the assessee filed the return of income giving the address as “Ground Floor, Stanrose House, A.M. Marg, Prabhadevi, Mumbai” and the same is a changed address of the assessee. Assessee communicated this changed address to the ITO in 2005. Ignoring these facts, Assessing Officer issued statutory notices on 5.10.2007, 25.7.2008 to the address as per the PAN records i.e., “M/s. ICICI E-payments Ltd., ICICI Towers, Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai-51”. Now the limited issue to be decided by us relates to whether the Assessing Officer rightly assumed jurisdiction when he issued statutory noticed to the address as given in the PAN records (BKC Address) and not the address as per the return of income i.e., Prabhadevi address. After narrating the relevant facts, CIT (A) granted relief holding that the impugned statutory notices issued without jurisdiction. Para 3.3 of the CIT (A)'s order is relevant and the same is self-explanatory. On perusal of the said para 3.3, we find it relevant to extract the relevant portion of the said para for the sake of completeness of this order and the same reads as under:
“3.3………. During assessment proceedings, the appellant vide letter dated 28.11.2008 brought to the notice of the Assessing Officer that the notice u/s 143(2) dated 5.10.2007 was not served the appellant and therefore, the proceedings u/s 143(2) were bad in law. In view of the appellant's raising such objections during assessment proceedings, the provisions of section 292BB were not applicable and section 292BB could not have given validity to the illegality/irregularity of the notices.
In view of discussion made above, it is held that the Assessing Officer completed assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act without assuming valid jurisdiction u/s 143(2) of the Act. In the facts and circumstances, the assessment framed u/s 143(3) of the Act was invalid. This ground of appeal is allowed.”
4. Considering the above facts as well as the decision of the CIT (A), we find the same are reasonable and we find no infirmity from the order of the CIT (A). Therefore, in our opinion the decision taken by the CIT (A) is fair and reasonable and it does not call for any interference. Accordingly, grounds raised by the Revenue are dismissed.
5. In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.