Issue and service of statutory notices forms an important part of all the proceedings under the Income-tax Act. The proceedings are initiated by issue of proper notice and valid service of that notice and end with proper service of order. In case of any deficiencies in the issue or service of notice , the order may be scrapped on technical grounds by the appellate authority without going into the merits of the order.
A
notice functions as a tool for ensuring natural justice by giving the assessee,
in respect of whom any proceeding is proposed to be initiated, an opportunity
of being heard. Further, a notice issued to a third party also serves as a
means of obtaining information about the assessee and his transactions. It is
of prime importance that the relevant statutory notice is issued and served
properly to the assessee. The assessing officer should ensure the following:-
(i)
timely
issue of the notice in the prescribed format.
(ii)
timely
and valid service of such notice.
(iii)
maintaining
proper record of both issue and service of notice.
Section
282(1)(a) of the Act provides for service by post as one of the accepted modes
of service of any communication under the Income Tax Act.
Text of Section 282
[1][282. Service of notice generally.
(1)
The service of a notice or summon or requisition or order or any other
communication under this Act (hereafter in this section referred to as “communication”)
may be made by delivering or transmitting a copy thereof, to the person therein
named, -
(a) by post or by
such courier services as may be approved by the Board; or
(b) in such manner
as provided under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) for the
purposes of service of summons; or
(c) in the form of
any electronic record as provided in Chapter IV of the Information Technology
Act, 2000 (21 of 2000); or
(d) by any other
means of transmission of documents as provided by rules made by the Board in
this behalf.
(2)
The Board may make rules providing for the addresses (including the address for
electronic mail or electronic mail message) to which the communication referred
to in sub-section (1) may be delivered or transmitted to the person therein
named.
Explanation.
- For the purposes of this section, the expressions “electronic mail” and “electronic
mail message” shall have the meanings as assigned to them in Explanation to
section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (21 of 2000).
KEY NOTE
1. Substituted by
the Finance (No. 20 Act, 2009, with effect from 01.10.2009.
The procedure for service by post is also given in section 27
of the General Clauses Act,
1897 which is mentioned as under :-
Text of Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897
27. Meaning of
service by post.
Where
any Central Act or Regulation made after the commencement of this Act
authorizes or requires any document to be served by post, whether the
expression serve or either of the expressions give or send or any other
expression is used, then, unless a different intention appears, the service
shall be deemed to be effected by properly addressing, pre-paying and posting
by registered post, a letter containing the document, and, unless the contrary
is proved, to have been effected at the time at which the letter would be
delivered in the ordinary course of post.
The
aforesaid provision lays down where any Central Act or Regulation requires any
document to be served by post, the service shall be deemed to be effected by
properly addressing, pre-paying and posting by registered post, a letter
containing the document unless the contrary is proved.
Requirements
for valid service by post as per aforesaid section 27 of the General Clauses
Act, 1897 are:-
(i)
Proper
addressing
(ii)
Prepaying
(iii)
Sending
by registered post with acknowledgment due.
SLP dismissed against impugned order of High Court that where categorical findings recorded by Assessing Authority that notice under section 148 was served through speed post as well as by affixture but assessee did not turn up were not put to challenge by assessee before any Forum, raising of such plea under article 226 would not be maintainable
Proceedings for reassessment under
section 148 were initiated by Income-tax Department by invoking relevant
provisions and issuing notice and an assessment order was passed. Assessee
submitted that no notice under section 148 was issued and further, against
assessment order, he had preferred revision under section 264 where a ground
was taken in memo of revision that notice under section 148 was not validly
served, however, Revisional Authority without venturing into grounds so raised
by assessee, had rejected revision. High Court by impugned order held that
where categorical findings recorded by Assessing Authority that notice under
section 148 was served through speed post as well as by affixture but assessee
did not turn up were not put to challenge by assessee before any Forum,
therefore, raising of plea under article 226 that no notice under section 148
was issued would not be maintainable. SLP filed by assessee against said
impugned order was to be dismissed. [In favour of revenue] (Related Assessment
year : 2007-08) – [Achal Kumar Agrawal v. PCIT (2023) 151 taxmann.com 304
(SC)]
Where notices were manually despatched, date and time when notices were delivered to post office for dispatch was to be construed as date of issuance of notice
Where notices were manually
despatched, are disposed of with the direction to the JAOs to determine in
accordance with the law laid down in this judgment, the date and time when the
notices were delivered to the post office for despatch and consider the same as
date of issuance. – [Suman Jeet Agarwal v. ITO (2022) 449 ITR 517 : 143
taxmann.com 11 : (2023) 290 Taxman 493 (Del.)]
Delhi High Court decides date of issue of notices sent through various modes for purposes of time-barring reassessment - Clears air on fate of reassessment notices; Holds ‘despatch’ as per Section 13 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, sine qua non for ‘issuance’
The Delhi High Court in
the case of Suman Jeet Agarwal v. ITO (2022) 449 ITR 517 : 218 DTR 327 : 143
taxmann.com 11 (2023) 290 Taxman 493 : [TS-752-HC-2022(DEL)] (Del.) has
cleared the clouds to the major extent when it comes to issue of notice under
digital mode. In summary, date of issue of notice can be determined as follow:
|
S. No. |
Scenario |
Date of issue of Notice |
|
1. |
When notice is signed with DSC |
Date of triggering of email by the ITBA software. |
|
2. |
When notice is not signed with DSC |
Date of triggering of email by the ITBA software. |
|
3. |
When notice is made available in e-filing website sans real
time alert |
First date of such notice is accessed by assessee |
|
4. |
When notice is sent through post |
Date of dispatch to the assessee |
|
5. |
When email is sent to unrelated party |
First date of such Notice is accessed by the assessee |
Service by post, which had been returned with endorsement “addressee not found”, followed by an attempt at personal service and subsequent affixture would constitute substantial compliance of provisions of section 282
Service by post, which had been
returned with endorsement “addressee not found”, followed by an attempt at
personal service and subsequent affixture would constitute substantial
compliance of provisions of section 282. [In favour of revenue] (Related Assessment
year : 2008-09) - [Success Tours & Travels (P.) Ltd. v. ITO (2017) 394
ITR 37 : 295 CTR 430 : 247 Taxman 109 : 80 taxmann.com 262 (Cal.)]
Notice issued under section 148 sent by post to addressee at his proper address, would be deemed to have been delivered to him in ordinary course, if not returned undelivered and such service is sufficient even for purposes of section 148
A
notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to
as the “Act”) dated 16.10.2000 was issued to the respondent-assessee whereupon
proceedings under Section 142 of the Act were initiated and the order of
reassessment was passed.
The
Commissioner of Appeals has held that the proceedings stand vitiated as the
notice under Section 148 of the Act was not served upon the
respondent-assessee. The aforesaid order has been upheld by the Tribunal. It is
against the order of the Tribunal dated 13.07.2007 confirming the order of
Commissioner of Appeals holding the reassessment proceedings to be bad for want
of service of notice that the Revenue has preferred this appeal.
Held
: The only substantial question of law, which arises for consideration in this
appeal is whether sending of a notice under Section 148 of the Act to the
addressee at his correct address by registered post would be deemed to be
served, if not returned undelivered and would be sufficient service for the
purposes of Section 148 of the Act and reassessment proceedings.
The
facts reveal that a notice under Section 148 of the Act dated 16.10.2000 was
sent to the respondent-assessee by registered post vide Receipt No.1760 at its
proper address as mentioned in Paragraph 4.4 of the order of the Tribunal. It
has come on record that the notice so sent was never returned undelivered.
Section
282 of the Act is relevant for effecting service of notice. It provides that
the service of notice under the Act may be made by delivering or transmitting a
copy thereof, to any person named, inter alia, by post or any such other method
as may be approved by the Board or as may be provided under C.P.C. In other
words, Section 282 of the Act contemplates service of notice by post.
Section
27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 gives rise to presumption of service of
notice by post. It reads as under:
27. Meaning of service by post.--
Where any Central Act or Regulation made after the commencement of this Act
authorizes or requires any document to be served by post, whether the
expression “serve” or either of the expressions “give” or “send” or any other
expression is used, then, unless a different intention appears, the service
shall be deemed to be effected by properly addressing, pre-paying and posting
by registered post, a letter containing the document, and, unless the contrary
is proved, to have been effected at the time at which the letter would be
delivered in the ordinary course of post.’
The
aforesaid provision lays down where any Central Act or Regulation requires any
document to be served by post, the service shall be deemed to be effected by
properly addressing, pre-paying and posting by registered post, a letter
containing the document unless the contrary is proved.
In
view of the Section 27 of General Clauses Act, since the notice under Section
148 of the IncomeTax Act was admittedly sent to the respondent-assessee by
registered post at his proper address and the same was not returned unserved, a
presumption of service of the said notice arises, as has been held in Shimla
Development Authority v. Santosh Sharma (1997) 2 SCC 637, unless contrary
is proved by the other side for which the burden also rests upon him vide Dr.
Sunil Kumar Sambhudayal Gupta v. State of Maharashtra (2010) 13 SCC 657.
After
the service of the notice as aforesaid, proceedings under Section 142 were
drawn and notice under Section 142(1) was issued to the respondent-assessee on
23.01.2002. In respect to the said notice, the respondent-assessee filed reply
on 04.02.2002 and claimed that he had not received any notice under Section 148
of the Act. He desired that the reasons for issuing the said notice be informed
to him.
The
filing of the aforesaid reply by the respondent-assessee reveals that he
actually had the knowledge of the notice under Section 148 of the Act.
Moreover, as desired by him, the reasons for issuing the notice under Section
148 of the Act were communicated to him as is evident from the order-sheet
entry dated 05.03.2002.
In
view of the above, the purpose of the notice stand duly served and it cannot be
said that the respondent-assessee had no proper knowledge of the notice issued
under Section 148 of the Act. [In favour of revenue] – [CIT v. Privilege
Investment (P) Ltd. (2017) 395 ITR 147 : 88 taxmann.com 559 (All.)]
Valid
service of notice: Law explained on whether sending a notice by RPAD and its
return by the postal authorities with the remark “addressee refused to accept”
amounts to a valid service or not
The
High Court had to inter alia consider the following question of law:
“Whether
on the facts and circumstances of the case and on true and correct
interpretation of the provisions in rule 68 of the Bombay Sales Tax Rules,
1959, and having regard to the rulings of the Patna High Court judgment in the
case of M/s. Judagi Sao and Another (116 STC 106) and the Orissa High
Court judgment in the case of M/s. Mahabir Prasad Agrawalla (79 STC 163),
the Tribunal was justified in holding that the revision notice dated 26.11.2002
calling the appellant for hearing on 27.01.2003 was not properly served, when
in fact the said notice was properly sent by R.P.A.D. to the appellant’s place
and the same was returned by the postal authorities with the remarks regarding
the appellant’s having refused to accept it ?”
When
it was sent by R.P.A.D. to the address, it was returned by the postal
authorities with the remark, that the addressee refused to accept the packet.
That is why it is returned. Thus, the presumption that when the addressee whose
address is set out on the envelope had an occasion to notice and peruse the
packet, meant for him, but he refuses to accept it, then, that is deemed to be
served. The addressee in this case is correctly described. There is no dispute
about his identity. Even his address is correct. It is at that address the
packet is carried and by the concerned postal authority. The duly authorised
person carrying the packet reached the address. On noticing the addressee, he
serves it, but the addressee after having perused the packet refused to accept
it. It is in these circumstances, the postal remark that the concerned person
has refused to accept; hence, returned to the sender denotes good and valid
service. – [Commissioner of Sales Tax, Maharashtra State v. Sunil Haribhau
Pote, Baramati Sales Tax Reference No. 53 of 2009 – Date of Judgement :
21.07.2017 (Bom.)]
If notice under section 143(2) has been sent through post and delivered on time on correct address, it is a proper service in time
ITAT approved Revenue’s
reliance on Delhi High Court ruling in the case of CIT v. Yamu Industries
Ltd. (2008) 306 ITR 309 (Del.) wherein it was held if the
notice sent by registered post to assessee’s correct address had not been
received back ‘unserved’ within a period of 30 days of its issuance, there was
presumption under law that the said notice had been duly served upon the
assessee within the period of limitation.
Once
notice under section 143(2) has been sent through post and postal authorities
have duly acknowledged that same has been served on a given date on correct
address of person on whom post was addressed, then it cannot be said that
service of notice through post has been done on some subsequent date or to some
other person; presumption in law in such a case is that it has been served upon
assessee. [In favour of revenue] (Related Assessment year : 2001-02) – [P.A.
Chacko Muthalaly v. ACIT (2015) 168 TTJ 640 : (2014) 151 ITD 166 : 50
taxmann.com 54 (ITAT Mumbai)]
Law on validity of service of notices by “Speed Post” instead of “Registered Post A/D” explained
In
the present case, the service has been made by ‘speed post’. The issue as to
whether the same constitutes ‘registered post’, the species of post referred to
in section 27 of the General Clauses Act, and to which only, therefore, the
said provision is applicable, stands, as noted with approval in Milan Poddar
v. CIT (2013) 357 ITR 619 (Jharkhand), clarified by the Tribunal, whose
order was under challenge before it, applying the principle of updating
construction, that registered post would take within its sweep not only ‘speed
post’ but also all other mails forming part of the establish system of mails in
which their receipt and movement is recorded to assure safe delivery (para 21).
All the principal attributes of ‘registered post’ were inherently present in
‘speed post’, so that the two were of the same genus (para 14). The term
registered post being not defined, it could only be so in terms of its
elements, which the tribunal gathered from the dictionary meaning of the word
‘registered’; its common parlance meaning; and its substance. How could, we
wonder, a different view of the matter be taken or adopted? In other words,
‘speed post’ was in substance only ‘registered post’ and, consequently, the
statutory presumption of section 27 shall hold in its respect as well. It was
further noted by the tribunal that section 27 did not require the mail to be
sent by registered post together with acknowledgment due (AD). The additional
requirement of AD could not, therefore, be read into the provision (para 11).
The legal fiction of section 27 would, therefore, imply service within the time
by which a speed post is in the ordinary course of business, delivered. (Related
Assessment year : 2009-10) - [Color Craft v. ITO - I.T.A. No. 5818/Mum/2014 –
Date of Judgement ; 17.07.2015 (ITAT Mumbai)]
Rejects
assessee’s stand of non-service of notice; Holds postal-authorities as agent
ITAT
upholds re-assessment initiation, rejects assessee’s stand of non-service of
Section 148 notice; Notes Assessing Officer transmitted the notice by post,
holds postal authorities acts as agent of the recipient; Approves Revenue’s
reliance on Delhi High Court ruling in CIT v. Yamu Industries Ltd. (2008) 306 ITR 309 (Del.) wherein it was
held if notice sent by post not received back as ‘unserved’ within a period of
30 days of its issuance, it shall be presumed that notice is duly served upon
the assessee; Observes assessee’s initial hearings never indicated that Sec 148
notice was not properly served, which was further fortified by assessee’s
repeated appearances; Remarks “The lame objection is taken at the fag end of
assessment, which clearly smack of a design.” [In favour of revenue] – [ITO v. Shubhashri
Panicker [TS-375-ITAT-2015(JPR)] – Date of Judgement : 26.05.2015
(ITAT Jaipur)]
ITAT
explains how to serve Proper Notice by Post & affixtures - Where department
had not been able to demonstrate that notice under section 143(2) was served
within statutory time limit, assessment made on basis of such invalid notice
could not be treated to be valid assessment and, hence, such assessment order
deserved to be treated as null and void and liable to be quashed and annulled
In
the instant case, assessee has filed his objection before the Assessing Officer
and such objection has also been noted by the Assessing Officer in his
assessment order to the effect that assessee has objected non-service of notice
under section 143(2) during the course of assessment proceedings itself. Thus,
participation of assessee in the assessment proceedings will not disentitle the
assessee his right to object to the service of notice under section 143(2)
After going through the
assessment records, it is found that notice issued under section 143(2) dated
17.07.2012 returned unserved by postal authorities. Thereafter notice was
affixed by the Inspector on 28-7-2012. Thus, it is to be examined as to whether
service of notice by affixture was proper in terms of provisions of Order V,
rules 17 to 20 of CPC. As per provisions of section 282, notice under the Act
is to be served either by post or as if it is summoned under the Code of Civil
Procedure. Notice dated 17.07.2012 has been claimed to have been served through
affixture on 27.07.2012 as provided in Code of Civil Procedure. Here provisions
of Order V rules 17 to 20 of CPC are relevant.
There
was no valid service of notice under section 143(2) by way of affixation. Since
in the instant case, the department has not been able to demonstrate that
notice under section 143(2) was served within the statutory time limit, the
assessment made on the basis of such invalid notice could not be treated to be
valid assessment and, hence, such assessment order deserves to be treated as
null and void and liable to be quashed and annulled. Accordingly, the assessee’s
appeal on legal issue regarding non-service of notice under section 143(2) is
allowed. [In favour of assessee] (Related Assessment year : 2008-09) – [SanjayBadani
v. DCIT (2014)] 35 ITR(T) 536 : 50 taxmann.com 457 (ITAT Mumbai)]
In
absence of record mentioning of a specific actual date on which assessee was served
upon notice, assessment framed furtherance to said notice was invalid
Respectfully
following the ratio laid down by the jurisdictional Delhi High Court in Nulon
India Ltd. v. ITO (2010) 323 ITR 681 : (2009) 183 Taxman 229 (Del.), CIT
v. Vardhman Estate (P) Ltd. (2006) 287 ITR 368 (Del.), CIT v. Lunar Diamonds
Ltd. (2006) 281 ITR 1 : (2005) 146 Taxman 691 (Del.) it is concluded that
in the instant case when there is nothing available on record to suggest that
notice issued under section 143(2) on the address that is FG-67-C, Vikashpuri,
New Delhi sent through speed post on 19.09.2008 was actually served upon the
assessee within the time prescribed under proviso to section 143(2)(ii) nor is
there any scope of presumption of service in absence of rule 19A, Order V of
CPC, no notice under section 143(2) was served upon the assessee within the
time limit prescribed under the proviso to section 143(2)(ii) hence the
assessment framed in furtherance to the said notice is not valid in the eyes of
the law. The same is thus quashed as such. [In favour of assessee] (Related Assessment
year : 2007-08) – [DCIT v. Vashistha Builders & Engineers (P) Ltd. (2014)
52 taxmann.com 18 (ITAT Delhi)]
To
decide whether section 148 notice is “issued” in time, date of handing over by Assessing
Officer to post office to be seen
- Held that it is on the date of despatch of section 148 notice that the
same will be held to be issued for the purpose of section 149-
In
respect of Assessment year 2003-04, the Assessing Officer issued
a notice under section 148 dated 31.03.2010. However, the notice was given by
the Assessing Officer to the post office for dispatch to the assessee on 07.04.2010 and
it was delivered to the assessee on 08.04.2010. The assessee filed a Writ
Petition contending that though the notice was dated 31.03.2010, it was
not “issued” till it was delivered to the post office on 07.04.2010 by which
time the limitation period of 6 years from the end of the assessment year
prescribed in section 149 had expired. HELD upholding the plea:
For
purposes of section 149, the expression “notice shall be issued” means
that the notice should go out of the hands of the Assessing Officer. On facts,
though the notice was signed on 31.03.2010, it was sent to the speed post
center for booking only on 07.04.2010. Considering the definition of the word
“issue”, merely signing the notices on 31.03.2010 cannot be equated with
“issuance of notice” as contemplated under section 149. The date of issue would
be the date on which the same was handed over for service to the proper
officer, which in the present case would be the date on which the notices was
actually handed over to the post office for the purpose of booking for the
purpose of effecting service on the assessee. Till the point of time the
envelopes are properly stamped with adequate value of postal stamps, it cannot
be stated that the process of issue is complete. As the notice was sent for
booking to the Speed Post Center on 07.04.2010, the date of “issue” of the
notice would be 07.04.2010 and not 31.03.2010, which is beyond the limitation
period. Consequently, the reassessment cannot be sustained. – [Kanubhai M.
Patel (HUF) v. Hiren Bhatt (2011) 334 ITR 25 : 202 Taxman 99 : 12 taxmann.com
198/ (Guj.)]
Where
notice under section 143(2) sent by registered post at correct address of
assessee had not been received back 'unserved' within period of thirty days of
its issuance, there was a presumption under law that said notice had been duly
served upon assessee within period of limitation
Provisions
of section 282 with regard to the service of notice had been duly complied with
by the revenue. Since the notice under section 143(2) sent by the registered
post had not been received back 'unserved' within thirty days of its issuance,
there would be presumption under the law that notice had been duly served upon
the assessee. Thus, notice under section 143(2) had been duly served upon the
assessee within the period of limitation and the finding of the Tribunal that
no notice under section 143(2) had been served within the prescribed period was
liable to be set aside. As such, the instant appeal filed by the revenue was to
be accepted and the impugned order passed by the Tribunal was to be set aside
and, consequently, the order quashing the assessment for the period in question
was also to be set aside. [In favour of revenue] – [CIT (Central) v. Yamu
Industries Ltd. (2008) 306 ITR 309 : 214 CTR 445 : 167 Taxman 67 (Del.)]
Notice issued under section
143(2) after prescribed period void, where first notice, issued by post within
time was not served on assessee at correct address
In this
case, notice for scrutiny under section 143(2) of
the Act was sent by post but was returned back with
the remark of the postal authorities that the premises/house number mentioned
did not exist. Subsequently, another notice under section 143(2) was issued but
this notice was beyond the prescribed period and an ex parte assessment order
was framed. Question arose whether the first notice under section 143(2) was
served within the prescribed period or not.
Delhi High Court noticed that the postal authorities had not tried to serve the notice on the assessee at the correct address, i.e., B-226, Vivek Vihar, Delhi but had reported that property No. 226 did not exist. It was further mentioned that there was an interpolation in the address of the assessee mentioned in the notice. [In favour of revenue] – [CIT v. Eqbal Singh Sindhana [TS-44-HC-2007(DEL)] – date of Judgement : 03.04.2007 (Del.)]
Return was filed on 31.10.2001, and in terms of section 143(2) notice had to be served on assessee on or before 31.10.2002 - Tribunal found that date of service of notice through speed post was 01.11.2002 - Revenue sought to contend that since notice was dispatched by speed post on 30.10.2002, that should be regarded as date of service - In view of decision in CIT v. Lunar Diamonds Ltd. (2006) 281 ITR 1 (Del.), revenue’s contention that words “served” and “issued” were synonymous and interchangeable was to be rejected - Therefore, no substantial question of law arose and, consequently, revenue's appeal was to be dismissed
The
return was filed on 31.10.2001, and in terms of section 143(2) the notice had
to be served on the assessee on or before 31.10.2002. The date of service by
speed post was said to be 01.11.2002. The Tribunal accepted the contention of
the assessee that the date of service through speed post was 01.11.2002. The
revenue, however, sought to contend that since the notice was dispatched by
speed post on 30.10.2002, that should be the deemed date of service. On
reference:
Held
: So far as service of notice by speed post is concerned. The point stood
concluded against the revenue in CIT v. Lunar Diamonds Ltd. (2006) 281 ITR 1
(Del.). In that case, the Bench had taken note of and rejected the
contention of the Revenue that the words "served" and
"issued" were synonymous and interchangeable. In other words, the
court negatived the argument that the word "issued" must be read as
"served". Thus, no substantial question of law arose and,
accordingly, instant appeal was to be dismissed. [In favour of assessee] – [CIT
v. Vardhman Estate (P) Ltd. (2006) 287 ITR 368 : (2007) 208 CTR 251 (Del.)]
When
a notice under section 148 sent by registered post was received back, but there
was no endorsement on cover (envelope) of either refusal or service or even
return of envelope to sender or fact that assessee had left addressed place, it
could not be said that an attempt was made to effect service on assessee and,
therefore, it could not be said that service of said notice was properly
effected or accomplished
In
fact, to be fair to the parties, the consistent stand of the respondents all
along clearly had been that the notices could not be served even by registered
post and, therefore, the service by affixation had to be resorted to. Even in
the affidavit-in-opposition there was no averment to the effect that the
appellant was served the notices by registered post. There was in fact a clear
finding by the Assessing Officer himself that the notice by registered post had
come back (unserved.). Even the Commissioner in the order passed under section
263 pursuant to the show-cause notice had made similar observations.
There
was neither any material which could justify the inference or finding
that service by registered post was either effected or
should be deemed to have been accomplished nor was this the case of respondents
before the single judge and, thus, the single judge erred in law in returning
such a finding. Therefore, it was to be held that the service by the
registered post of the notices allegedly sent to the
appellant, resulting in the passing of the order under section 147, was not
properly effected or accomplished. Since, admittedly the service of
such notices was a necessary pre-requisite, a condition precedent for
passing of the orders under section 147, such orders were bad in law and, therefore,
proceedings under section 263 of the Act, admittedly originating from such
orders could not be initiated against the appellants. Consequently, the finding
of the single judge that the notice under section 147/148 was
properly served by registered post was to be set aside and because
the entire basis of the operative part of the judgment of the single judge
proceeded on the premises of due service of the registered cover,
contents being subject to proof, such basis having been knocked out, nothing
survived insofar as the operative part of the judgment under appeal was
concerned. (Related Assessment years : 1983-84 to 1987-88) – [Keshab Narayan
Banerjee v. CIT (1998) 101 Taxman 512 (Cal.)]
No comments:
Post a Comment