Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2007 (9) TMI 297

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... knew that the assessee had moved to Faridabad from Kalkaji he ought to have proceeded to Faridabad o serve the notice. Thus, the contention based on r. 17 is also to be upheld. There is no evidence to show that the notice server (Shri Babulal) was required to file an affidavit or that he was examined by the AO on oath. Such procedural irregularities do invalidate the service of the notice as held by the Kerala High Court in M.O. Thomas vs. CIT [ 1962 (2) TMI 88 - KERALA HIGH COURT] . It is also seen that no reasonable attempts were made by the AO or the serving officer to find the assessee before serving the notice by affixture. Thus, we are of the view that the notice served on the assessee on 31st Oct., 2002 in its Kalkaji address w .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ss in electronic detonators in the name and style of M/s Ram Singh Co. 2. The first and tenth grounds are general and require no decision. 3. Ground Nos. 2 and 3 are to the effect that the assessment is to be quashed since it has been framed without serving the mandatory notice under Section 143(2) within the statutory period of 12 months from the end of the month in which the return was filed. The return was filed on 31st Oct., 2001. Notice under Section 143(2), therefore, ought to have been served on the assessee on or before 31st Oct., 2002. A notice was issued on 25th Oct., 2002 and it was served by affixture on 31st Oct., 2002. The assessee challenges the notice on the ground that it has not been properly served and since no ot .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e service by affixture is made and such satisfaction should be spelt out clearly. This is absent in the present case so far as we can see from the record. In CIT v. Savitri Devi Agarwalla (1970) 77 1TR 934 (Assam) , the Assam High Court held that there should first be an order by the Court and then service by affixture and the mere fact that after service by affixture the Court was satisfied that service should be effected by affixture would not be proper compliance with Rule 20. In the present case, the last known address of the assessee was 55/28 sector, Faridabad (behind Tile India), as per the reverse of the notice issued on 25th Oct., 2002 (p. 1A of the paper book) but the notice has been served by affixture on tha Kalkaji address of t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... hown by him i.e. the serving officer. When he knew that the assessee had moved to Faridabad from Kalkaji he ought to have proceeded to Faridabad to serve the notice. Thus, the contention based on r. 17 is also to be upheld. 6. In addition thereto, Rule 19 of Order 5 requires that where notice is returned under Rule 17, the Court shall, if the return under the rule has not been verified by an affidavit of the serving officer, examine the serving officer on oath touching his proceedings and may make such further enquiry as he deems fit and shall either declare that the notice has been duly served or pass such order as he thinks fit. In the present case, there is no evidence to show that the notice server (Shri Babulal) was required to file .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... d. There is no other evidence from which it can be definitely asserted that the notice was served on the assessee at the aforesaid address. The record produced before us does not contain any order-sheet entry on 8th Nov., 2002, the date on which the assessee was required to appear before the AO by the notice issued on 25th Oct., 2002 by registered post. This is one pointer to the fact that the said notice was not served on the assessee. 9. For the aforesaid reasons, we hold that there is no valid service of notice on the assessee under Section 143(2) either by affixture or by post. In this situation, we have no option but to quash the assessment on the basis of the judgments of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Lunar Diamonds (supra), .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates