Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2018 (6) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (6) TMI 221 - HC - Income TaxProper service under the provisions of Section 282(2) - Validity of reopening of assessment - service of notice at the factory premises of the Assessee on the security guard - difference between “served” and “issued” - Held that:- Discussion and conclusions/findings recorded by the first appellate authority, un-ambiguously do not reflect and show that ground of invalidity of service in terms of Section 282 of the Act was raised. There is no discussion on the issue; whether the service by registered post or by the Inspector on the security guard would be valid. Legal effect and consequences were not considered. This would un-mistakenly support the submission of the appellant-Revenue that this ground was not taken at the initial stage and when the first appeal was preferred and decided. Moreover, what is important and relevant is whether this contention was raised before the Assessing Officer. Respondent-assessee accepts that this contention was not raised before the Assessing Officer. We find sufficient justification and reason to allow the present appeal and answer the substantial question of law in favour of the appellant-Revenue and against the respondent-assessee. It is held that the assessment proceedings under Section 147/148 are not invalid or void for want of proper service of notice. However, an order of remand is required to be passed as the Tribunal has not adjudicated and decided the appeal filed by the respondent-assessee on merits.
|