Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

6. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of R.L. Narang v. CIT , in which it was pointed out that Income Tax Act is a Central Act and Section 282 provides for service by post. As such, the provisions of Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, are applicable. Therefore, for raising the presumption that a notice has been served, it should be sent by registered post. If the notice is served through a process server and there is neither a service report nor any evidence to show the identity of the person on whom the service was affected, there was no proper service. In the light of this decision, it was pointed out that there is no evidence that the notice was sent to the assessee by registered post. There is also no evidence in the form of report of process server or the identity of the person on whom the service was affected. Thus, it was argued that the impugned notice dated 11/13.11.1997 was not served on the assessee. Further, reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Orissa High Court in the case of ITO v. Manmohan Lal and Ors. , in which it was pointed out that Section 282 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, contemplates that a notice may be served on the person named therein either by post or as if it was a summons issued under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Respondent No. 1 and 2 were named in the notices as concerned persons, to whom notices were sent at their addresses by post. It was necessary that the notices were sent by registered post with AD. In so far as Respondent No. 3 was concerned, notices sent by Registered Post with AD should have been delivered either to the Manager or the Principal Officer of the firm. The postal acknowledgement slip does not disclose that the notices were delivered at the address or the Manger or the Principal Officer. If the notices were delivered to someone else, it cannot be said that the notices were duly delivered and served upon them. In that case, no presumption can be drawn. No attempt was made by the Petitioner to ! prove by adducing evidence either oral or documentary, that the persons who received the notices were authorize agents of the opposite parties. Therefore, the finding of the Subordinate Judge that there was no service of notices cannot be displaced by invoking revisional jurisdiction of the Court under Section 115 of the Code. Reliance was also placed on the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Vardhman Estate Pvt. Ltd. . In that case, notice was required to be served on or before 31.10.2002. The notice was served by Speed Post on 1.11.2002. The A.O. did not produce any document before the Tribunal regarding the service of the notice through the process server. The Tribunal passed the order holding that since the notice was served after 31.10.2002, the assessment was not valid. The Hon'ble Court, inter-alia, pointed out that revenue sought to place reliance on the service through the process server for which documents were not produced before the Tribunal. Therefore, it was held that the Tribunal was not in error in rejecting the rectification application moved by the revenue and holding that the assessment was bad in law. It was also held that no substantial question of law arose from the facts of the case.

9. We have considered the facts of. the case and rival submissions. The facts of the case are that purportedly a notice under section 143(2) of the Act dated 11/13.11.1997 was issued to the assessee vide Dispatch No. 2640. The learned DR was specifically asked to produce the record maintained by the A.O. to show the mode and manner in which the notice was issued or served on the assessee. The same was not done. However, a letter dated 12.6.08 was filed which is not in relation to assessment year 1996-97 but in assessment year 1995-96. This shows that either no record exists with the A.O. to show the mode and manner in which the notice for this year was issued or served to the assessee or sufficient attention was not paid to the pointed query of the Tribunal in this behalf. The only material of record are the copies of the notice and the questionnaire, bearing Dispatch No. 2640. There is no evidence on record whether the notice was served through the process server or through Registered Post AD. The notice does not bear any signature of the authorized person of the assessee company. In such a circumstance, it can be inferred that there is no evidence before us that the notice was served through process server as held in the case of Vardhman Estate Pvt. Ltd. (supra). There is no evidence on record that the notice was handed over to the Postal Authorities in an envelop properly addressed and pre-paid by way of Registered Post At). Consequently, it is held that the notice has also not been served on the basis of presumption of the General Clauses Act, 1897. Thus, there is no evidence on record to show that the notice was served on the assessee before 30.11.1998. It is also clear that the AO and the learned DR routinely filed the letter dated 11.06.08 and 12.6.08 respectively, as they do not pertain to the assessment year under question. In these circumstances, it is held that the impugned notice has not been served on the assessee.