Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2014 (12) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (12) TMI 131 - ITAT MUMBAIScrutiny / Regular Assessment - Service of notice - Notice served u/s 143(2) within the prescribed time or not – assessee contended that the acknowledgement of service of notice does not bears the signature of the assessee - Held that:- The notice u/s 143(2) dated 29th October 2002, was sent through speed post duly addressed in the name of the assessee and sent on the address which was provided in the return of income on 30th October 2002 - The post was duly delivered at the address mentioned therein on 31st October 2002, which is evident from the acknowledgement of the postal department placed on record - it creates a legal fiction by which the service of a notice is deemed to be effected, once the notice is properly addressed, pre–paid and posted by registered post - Such a contention of the assessee is legally not tenable, because once the notice has been sent through post and the postal authorities have duly acknowledged that the same has been served on a given date on the correct address of the person on whom the post was addressed, then it is not open for the assessee to say that the post was received by the some other person - The presumption in law is that it has been served upon the assessee. No other notice u/s 143(2), was sent by the AO, which has been claimed to have been received by the assessee on 15th November 2002, other than the one dated 29th October 2002, sent through speed post - If there is no second notice, then the presumption is that the same notice dated 29th October 2002, sent through speed post which was served on 31st October 2002, has been received by the assessee – thus, the notice u/s 143(3) was validly served upon the assessee with the statutory time limit and the order of the CIT(A) is upheld – Decided against assessee.
|