TMI Blog2004 (2) TMI 10X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... countants is not a valid service. – Held that trial court lost sight of the provisions of Order 5, rule 12 of the Civil Procedure Code and the letters of request made by the respondents in all these cases to grant time or extend the time to submit the return is perverse and incorrect which calls for interference under section 379 of the Criminal Procedure Code - Order under revision passed by the trial court is liable to be set aside. - - - - - Dated:- 17-2-2004 - Judge(s) : K. RAMANNA. JUDGMENT K. Ramanna J. - All these criminal revision petitions are filed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle, Bangalore, against the orders dated October 20, 2001, passed by the Special Court for Economic Offences, Bangalore, in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dmission made by the respondents in their letters of request to grant some more time to submit the returns as their chartered accountants are busy in connection with the time barring assessments which are to be completed during March, 1997, and the records for the relevant years have been seized during the course of the search, being numerous, out of which most of the documents are yet to be scrutinised by them. In spite of that the trial court has ignored the point of admission made by the respondents about the service of notice on their chartered accountant and discharged them which amounts to illegality committed by the trial court. Heard learned counsel for both parties and perused the records. It is an undisputed fact that the revi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as recorded a perverse finding which calls for interference. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner has drawn my attention to the letter dated January 22, 1998, addressed by the respondents with a prayer to grant some more time to submit income-tax returns. Once a party acknowledges about the receipt of the notice served either on him/it or his/its agent, it amounts to valid service. If a party ratifies the action of the agent, then he is estopped from contending that the revision petitioner has not complied with the mandatory provisions of section 158BC of the Act. In support of these contentions learned counsel for the petitioner relied on a decision reported in the case of Maharana Mills (P.) Ltd. v. ITO [1959] 36 ITR 350 (SC), wher ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... evision petitioner utterly failed to comply with the mandatory provisions of the Act. Hence, initiation of criminal proceedings under section 276CCC of the Act is illegal and incorrect. In support of his contention learned counsel for the respondents relied on a decision reported in the case of ITO v. Mukesh Kumar [2002] 254 ITR 409 wherein the High Court of Punjab and Haryana held that: ". . . Failure to furnish return of income-Assessment year 1976-77 -Whether penal consequences of punishment under section 276CC can enure only when it is proved as a fact that assessee has wilfully failed to furnish return in due time after service of notice under section 148 and, thus, service of notice is a condition precedent before proceeding to pu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vided family' the notice is illegal and all proceedings taken under that notice are ultra vires and without jurisdiction." In the aforesaid case the notice was issued by the income-tax authorities to the karta of the Hindu undivided family but not in the individual names of the members of the undivided family and the proceedings initiated against the members of the Hindu undivided family were held to be ultra vires and without jurisdiction. Therefore, the ratio laid down in the aforesaid decision relied upon by learned counsel for the respondents is not applicable to the present cases. Further learned counsel for the respondents relied on another decision reported in the case of CIT v. Girdharilal [1984] 147 ITR 379, wherein the Rajasth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erest could never be waived and the want of jurisdiction was discovered by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, there was no question of waiver by the assessee. No question of finality of the remand order of the Tribunal could arise because the mandatory conditions for founding jurisdiction for initiating reassessment proceedings had not been fulfilled. The order of reassessment was, therefore, not valid." But in the instant case the mandatory notices were duly served by the revision petitioner on their chartered accountants (i.e., agents) and which has been admitted by the respondents, therefore, the provisions of Order 5, rule 12, of the Civil Procedure Code, will not at all come to the aid of the respondents to hold that service of no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
