Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

ATULBHAI HIRALAL SHAH Versus CP MEENA - DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND 2

2016 (6) TMI 564 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT

Reopening of assessment - validity of notice - Held that:- It had come on record that the department had sent the notice for service to 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 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

s, 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 proceedings since no other contention regarding the validity of the notice was raised. - SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2552 of .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ent-Assessing Officer for the assessment year 2008-09. The sole ground pressed in service is of non-service of notice of re-opening. 3. Brief facts are as under: The petitioner had filed return of income for the assessment year 2008-09 which was scrutinized before the Assessing Officer passed a scrutiny assessment order. To re-open such assessment, the Assessing Officer issued notice dated 24.03.2015. As per the petitioner, such notice was never served on the petitioner within the time envisaged .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ith 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 pet .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

r hand, the department contends that the notice was first sought to be served in person at the given address of the assessee where one Krishna Yadav was present and received the same on 27.03.2015. However, to ensure proper service through postal department, notice was also dispatched through post on 26.03.2015 at the address of the assessee, contained in his PAN card, which was returned back by the postal department on 31.03.2015 with remarks left . 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parti .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

fail. 8. The subsequent question pertains to the service of notice 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 com .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

writ petition, the petitioner had taken a contention that Krishna Yadav is unknown to the petitioner and, therefore, notice could not have been received by him. It is simultaneously contended that the assertion of the department that the notice returned unserved is self contradictory. 10. The department appeared and filed reply, in which, it was pointed out that in addition to personal service to the person present at the premises viz. Krishna Yadav, who received it on 27.03.2015, the departmen .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version