TMI Blog2008 (1) TMI 9X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essment Year 1997-98. 2. The only issue that arises for our consideration is whether the notice sent by the Assessing Officer under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short the Act) was served upon the Assessee within the statutory period of limitation of 12 months from the date of filing the return. 3. The Assessee filed its return of income on 30 th November, 1997 along with an audited balance sheet. On 28 th November, 1998, a notice was issued to the Assessee by the Assessing Officer through speed post. The notice stated that the case of the Assessee would be fixed for hearing on 8 th December, 1998.It appears that no proceedings took place on 8 th December, 1998 apparently because no one appeared on behalf of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ore expiry of the limitation period, otherwise, the affidavit of the Assessee would have to be accepted as correct. No such material was brought on record by the Assessing Officer. 8. We find it little odd that when no one appeared on behalf of the Assessee on 8 th December, 1998, the Assessing Officer did not take any steps to find out whether the notice had been served upon the Assessee or not. Enquiries could have been made at that point of time itself but for some reason the Assessing Officer sat back till October, 1999 before sending another notice to the Assessee. 9. Under these circumstances, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal rightly took note of the affidavit filed by the Assessee that the only notice it received was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... notice dated 28 th November, 1998. In fact, its case has been that the only notice ever received by it was the one dated 21 st October, 1999. In the duplicate copy of the notice dated 21 st October, 1999, learned counsel for the Assessee had made an endorsement that he has received the time barred notice. This was followed by an affidavit by the Assessee stating that it had not received any notice prior to the notice dated 21 st October, 1999. In a case such as this, the onus is clearly upon the Revenue to show that the notice dated 28 th November, 1998 was, in fact, served on the Assessee within the time prescribed by law. The Revenue has not been able to discharge its onus either before the Tribunal or before us. We, therefore, find ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
