Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2015 (10) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (10) TMI 1272 - ITAT JAIPURReopening of assessment - mode of service of notice - Held that:- By affixture notice was served on the given address of the assessee on 26/09/2008. Even the assessee himself admitted that he had received notice dated 30/09/2008 on 09/10/2008, which is within 12 months from the date of return filed i.e. 31/10/2007. The Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Amarjit Singh Tut (2013 (2) TMI 173 - Punjab and Haryana High Court) has held that statute of limitation is a procedural statute and is applicable to pending proceedings. Objection to the territorial jurisdiction has to be raised at the earliest and it otherwise deemed to have been waived.The Hon’ble Court further held that for A.Y. 2007-08 even notice issued and served within one year from the end of the date of return is valid notice U/s 143(2)(ii) of the Act. In another case, the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Jasbir Singh NRI through Shri Jarnail Singh, POA [2014 (3) TMI 221 - PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT ] has held that notice issue on the last known address is valid service. It is further held that it was incumbent on the Tribunal not to quash the whole proceedings as it amounted to leaving the assessee go scot free, though he is liable to pay tax on the capital gains. The assessee received compensation on compulsory acquisition of land, therefore, he cannot deny his liability to pay long term capital gain tax. Merely because there was some error in service of notices on the assessee, statutory liability of the assessee to pay tax on capital gain was not over. Because of procedural lapse, the assessee should not be a gainer and that too by default to escape his liability. The case law cited by the learned DR i.e. V.R.A. Cotton Mills P. Ltd. Vs. Union of India (2011 (9) TMI 611 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT) is squarely application on the assessee’s case wherein it has been held that prescribed time limit for notice, the expression “serve” and “issue” are interchangeable, as has been noticed in Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 and also in a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Banarsi Devi Vs. ITO (1964 (3) TMI 11 - SUPREME Court), therefore, the moment, notice is signed and put in the course of transmission by the department, the notice is due to be served. It has been held that notice, which was served by the affixture on the last day of limitation is valid. The appellant had not filed any FIR against the claim that somebody had filed his return as claimed before the learned CIT(A), therefore, we set aside the order of the learned CIT(A) and directed to frame the order as per law after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to both the parties. - Decided in favour of revenue.
|