Delhi High Court
Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Vardhman Estate P. Ltd. on 25 September, 2006
Equivalent citations: [2006]287ITR368(DELHI)
Author: Vikramajit Sen
Bench: Vikramajit Sen
JUDGMENT
1. We have seen the records of the I.T.A. Nos. 1088 of 2005 see [2006] 287 ITR 370 (Delhi) (infra) where the following substantial question of law has been formulated:
Whether the actual service of a notice under Section 143(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as it stood before amendment, after the date prescribed in the said provision would relate back to the date of issue of the notice?
2. It is palpably evident that certain typographical errors have occurred in framing the question of law. In our view, it should read as follows:
Whether the actual service of a notice under Section 143(2) of the Income-tax Act, issued before the date prescribed in the said provision, would relate back to the date of the issuance of the notice?
3. So far as this question is concerned it stands answered on all fours by the decision in CIT v. Lunar Diamonds Ltd. (Delhi). The Bench had taken note of and rejected the contention of the Revenue that the words "served" and "issued" are synonymous and interchangeable. In other words, this Court negatived the argument that the word "issued" must be read as "served". We are in respectful agreement with this view.
4. In the present case, the return was filed on October 31, 2001, and in terms of Section 143(2) the notice had to be served on the assessed on or before October 31, 2002. The argument is that there were two modes of service, i.e., by speed post as well as by a process server. The date of service, so far as speed post is concerned, is said to be November 1, 2002, but so far as the process server is concerned it is stated to have been effected on October 31, 2002. The Tribunal has accepted the contention of the assessed that the date of service through speed post was November 1, 2002. Even before us, the appellant has not produced any material to suggest that the notice sent by speed post was served on any earlier date. On the other hand, it is sought to be contended that since the notice was dispatched by speed post on October 30, 2002, that should be the deemed date of service. We are unable to agree. So far as service by speed post is concerned, one point stands covered against the Revenue in CIT v. Lunar Diamonds Ltd. .
5. So far as the service through the process server is concerned, the document which is annexure C to this paper book had not been filed before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal when the first order dated March 15, 2005, came to be passed. Mr. Jolly contends that the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was in error in rejecting the rectification application on the grounds that annexure C did not form part of the record of the case, and that the Tribunal ought to have called for and perused the assessment record of which the said document forms part. On a query as to whether there is any rule or regulation mandating that the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal call for the assessment records while considering an appeal, Mr. Jolly answers in the negative. In view of CIT v. Lunar Diamonds Ltd. no substantial question of law arises. Dismissed.