Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2016 (10) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (10) TMI 1034 - AT - Income TaxNon service of valid notice u/s 143(2) - notice sent by speed post - time for delivery - Held that:- Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Nulon India Ltd. vs. ITO (2008 (3) TMI 425 - DELHI HIGH COURT) narrated that there is no presumption under the law that any notice sent by speed post must be delivered to the assessee within 24 hours and hence, in the absence of any material on record it could not be said to have served within limitation. Similarly, Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs Inderpal Malhotra (2007 (10) TMI 672 - Delhi High Court ) has held that where a notice u/s.143(2) was issued by registered post on the last day of period of limitation, there is no way that the notice could have been received by the assessee on the same day unless the notice was sent by hand, which is not so in the present case. The Court has further stated that in CIT vs. Vardhman Estate (P.) Ltd. (2006 (9) TMI 128 - DELHI High Court ), a notice was sent by speed post one day before the period of limitation was to expire that is, on 30/10/2002 and the contention urged by the revenue in that case was that the notice sent should be deemed to have been served on the assessee. This argument was rejected by this Court and it was made clear that what is required by the statute is not merely the dispatch or issuance of the notice but its actual service. Thus we are of the considered opinion and hold that notice u/s.143(2) was not served upon the assessee legally and therefore appeal of the Department is not tenable and the same is dismissed. - Decided in favour of assessee
|