(1) Court No. 7 Case : INCOME TAX APPEAL No. 13 of 2020 Appellant : Manoj Kumar Sharma C 470, Beta 1, Greater Noida, Gautam Budha Nagar (Uttar Pradesh) 201308 (Pan No. BUFFPS6146D) Respondent : Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(2), Gautam Budh Nagar, Room No.404, 2d, 4th Floor, Sector 24, Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh 201301 Counsel for Appellant : Chandra Bhan Gupta Counsel for Respondent : Gaurav Mahajan Hon'ble Biswanath Somadder, J. Hon'ble Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava,J. 1. This appeal, under section 260A of Income Tax Act, 1961, has been taken out in respect of judgment and order of learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench (S.M.C.), New Delhi, dated 3rd October, 2019. appellant has essentially tried to make out case on two questions of law, which, according to learned advocate appearing for appellant, are substantial questions of law. questions of law are as follows: 1. Whether there was no service of notice under section 148 of Income Tax Act, 1961? 2. Whether additional/fresh evidence was taken into consideration by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) I ? 2. In our view, two questions of law cannot be termed as substantial questions of law . answer to two questions, however, are clearly reflected in order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) I dated 11th May, 2018, wherefrom appellant preferred appeal before learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench (S.M.C.), New Delhi. 3. So far as first question is concerned, following (2) paragraphs extracted from order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) I will speak for itself: 10. appellant raised ground that address on which notices were sent by Ld. AO being Manoj Kumar Sharma, Nai Abadi, Dadri, G.B. Nagar was not correct address as there could be more than one Manoj or Manoj Kumar or Manoj Kumar Sharma in Dadri and post office might have ended up serving notices of Ld. AO to any one of those persons named Manoj. It was contended by appellant that merely because notices sent by Ld. AO were not returned by postal authorities it cannot be presumed that those notices stood served upon appellant and service of notice was complete in terms of provisions of law. Based upon such logic, appellant has contended that there was no service of notice u/s 148 and therefore, impugned assessment order was bad in law and liable to be deleted. 11. ground taken by appellant stands negated by admitted position of appellant himself. 12. appellant has stated in its reply to report of Ld. AO that appellant came to know about best judgment assessment in its case only when it received notice u/s 274 of I.T. Act, 1961 asking it to show cause vide penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of I.T. Act, 1961 be not imposed on appellant. copy of said notice has been placed on record of this office under self authentication by appellant. It is seen that said notice vide F. No. ITO/W 2(2)/Noida/271(1) (c)/2017 18 dated 04.05.2017 file F. No./PAN/229/148 was issued on same address on which Ld. AO has issued earlier notices, i.e., Manoj Kumar Sharma, Nai Abadi, Dadri, G.B. Nagar. 13. Once postal authorities have duly served notice issued by Ld. AO upon appellant on that address as on (3) May, 2017 there can be no ground unless proved otherwise to assume that postal authorities would not have been able to serve notices issued by Ld. AO upon appellant on that very address earlier, i.e., prior to service of notice in May 2017. As none of notices were returned by postal authorities as unserved for want of complete or correct address presumption of bonafide as obtaining in favour of State would hold ground. In any case, appellant has received notices sent by Ld. AO on that same address as late as May 2017 and it cannot claim that address was incorrect or incomplete. 14. Therefore, in view of admission of appellant claim of appellant that it did not receive notices issued by Ld. AO because of address on which said notices were sent by Ld. AO was either incomplete or incorrect is not tenable. 4. So far as second question is concerned, answer to same is at paragraph 8 of said order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) I dated 11th May, 2018, which reads as follows: 8. Ld. AO by its report dated 26.03.2018 submitted its response to fresh evidence of appellant and rejected same and recommended that grounds raised by appellant were neither maintainable nor acceptable in eyes of law and appeal of appellant deserved to be dismissed by this office. 5. Both these issues were considered by learned Tribunal while passing judgment and order dated 3 rd October, 2019, which is evident from plain reading of paragraph 5 of said judgment and order dated 3 rd October, 2019. In order to avoid prolixity, we refrain from reproducing same. (4) 6. As stated hereinbefore, we do not find any substantial question(s) of law involved in this matter. Rather, issues are essentially factual in nature. appeal is, therefore, liable to be dismissed and stands dismissed accordingly. Order Date : 18.2.2020 Shahroz (Biswanath Somadder,J.) (Dr. Y.K. Srivastava,J.) Manoj Kumar Sharma v. Income-tax Officer, Ward-2(2), Noida