TMI Blog2016 (6) TMI 564X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o with attempted personal service by the department. Secondly, the petitioner does not dispute that the notice was in fact, dispatched through the postal department on or around 26.03.2015. Thirdly, the petitioner does not at least now dispute the correctness of the address. Lastly, the petitioner has not joined the postal department to question why and under what circumstances, the remarks “left” was made. So far as the Income Tax department is concerned, it was entitled to proceed on the basis of official remark of the Government of India Department that the service could not be effected since the addressee had left the place. Only on the ground of non-issuance of service of notice, we are not inclined to terminate the reopening procee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... no connection with any such person by such name. The petitioner also points out that according to the department, such notice was returned by the postal department with endorsement the addressee left . According to the petitioner, thus, there is clear contradiction in the stand of the department. If according to the department, such notice had already been served on Krishna Yadav at the site, the assertion that the notice returned unserved is incongruent. 5. Learned counsel Mr. R.K.Patel took us through voluminous materials on record to contend that there was no due service of notice. Only on this ground, the proceedings must fail. He submitted that the petitioner had no connection with said Krishna Yadav. At any rate, he was not an au ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... through the postal department. For whatever reason, having attempted to serve the notice through personal delivery, the department had also sent notice through postal dispatch and such notice was duly served or deemed to have been served, surely, the petitioner cannot argue that the entire proceedings must fail. In this context, we may notice that in the objections that the petitioner raised to the notice of reopening, under communication dated 01.02.2016 he had contended that, in the return of income for the assessment year 2008-09 he had given his address as 27, Saritkunj Society, inside Sardar Kunj, Shahpur, Ahmedabad 380001 . In the order of assessment also same address was recorded. However, the notice was dispatched at the address S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the petitioner through postal department on 26.03.2015 which was duly returned by the department with a remark left . The question of wrong address is virtually given-up by the petitioner. In fact, the petitioner contends that at that very address, the petitioner has received multiple communications and, therefore, the endorsement left was totally wrong. For multiple reasons, the stand of the petitioner cannot be accepted. Firstly, as noted, the postal dispatch has nothing to do with attempted personal service by the department. Secondly, the petitioner does not dispute that the notice was in fact, dispatched through the postal department on or around 26.03.2015. Thirdly, the petitioner does not at least now dispute the correctness of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
