Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

7.9. In the case of Hind Book House v. ITO 92 ITR 415 (Del.) also the issue relating to service of notice Under Section 143(2) was examined. In that case the validity of the order passed by the Assessing Officer Under Section 143(3) was challenged by alleging that no notice Under Section 143(2) was served on it within the time limit specified in the proviso to that sub-section. On examination of assessment record, the learned CIT(Appeals) found that the first notice issued Under Section 143(2) was served at the address given by the assessee in its return and the same was also signed by the recipient as 'A. Singh'. It was further submitted on behalf of the assessee firm that the said signature appearing on the office copy of notice Under Section 143(2) did not belong either to any of its partners or authorized representative. It was also submitted that there was no person employed with the assessee firm who could have signed as Mr. A. Singh in this regard. An affidavit of the partner of the firm in support of this contention was filed. A copy of this affidavit was forwarded by the learned CIT(Appeals) to the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer, in reply submitted that the notice was served through process server who was stated to have obtained the acknowledgement. The learned CIT(Appeals) on these submissions of the Assessing Officer held that the notice was properly served within the time limit specified Under Section 143(2). The Tribunal after examining the provisions of Section 282 held that the notice was neither served on any partner of the firm or any agent duly authorized to receive the same. This case is distinguishable from the facts on the present case on two grounds - (1) In that case the notice was served through process server and not through speed/registered post; and (2) affidavit was filed on behalf of the assessee specifically stating that the notice was not served on its partner or its authorized representative.