Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (0.28 seconds)The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Section 282 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
The Income Tax Act, 1961
Section 292BB in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 147 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Acit, Circle- 5(1), New Delhi vs Blue Coast Hotels Ltd., New Delhi on 17 March, 2023
3. It is countered by the ld. counsel relying the decision of the Hon'ble
jurisdictional Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Jai Shiv Shankar Traders
Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No.519/2015, order dated 14.10.2015, wherein relying the
decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in ACIT vs. Hotel Blue Moon (2010)
321 ITR 362, the order of the Tribunal concluding that for completing the
assessment u/s 148 of the Act compliance with the procedure u/s 143(2) of the
Act was mandatory, was upheld. In that case also, the return originally filed
was sought to be treated as the return filed pursuant to the notice u/s 148 of the
Act.
Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Hotline International Pvt. Ltd. on 3 April, 2007
6. It is settled law that it is the duty of the revenue to establish that the
service of an order or a notice was made on the assessee himself or on
somebody duly authorized by him in that behalf. When the assessee pleads that
he has not been properly served with any notice, it is for the Department to
place the relevant material to substantiate the plea that the assessee was served
with prior notice. Now as a matter of fact, in the case of the assessee, in the
assessment order, although it is mentioned that notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was
issued to the assessee, however, no date of issuance and more of service is
mentioned. Specially if it was served personally or any substituted services.
Then as per the report filed by the Ld. DR, there is no evidence of issuance of
the notice for its service in the assessment record. Hon'ble Jurisdictional High
Court in the case of CIT vs. Hotline International Pvt. Ltd. 296 ITR 333 has
held that section 282 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 lays down the mode of
service of notices. According to it, any notice under the Income Tax Act has to
be served on the person named therein either by post or summons issued by the
court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 order V, Rule 19A of the Code of
Civil Procedure provides for simultaneous service by post in addition to
personal service.
B. Johar Forest Works vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 30 April, 1973
In B.
Johar Forest Works vs. CIT, 107 ITR 409 (J&K), it was held that the notice
must be served in one of modes provided in the Act before an assessee could be
considered to be default. However, acquisition of knowledge in regard to
issuance of a notice, the Hon'ble Court held, could not be considered as
equivalent to, or a substitute for, the service of the notice on the assessee.
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Manick Chandra Dey And Ors. on 10 October, 1974
A
similar view was taken in CIT vs. Dey Brothers, 3 ITR 213 (Rang.), where the
Court held that the mere fact that the notice had in some way or other reached
8
ITAs No.5485 & 3382/Del/2017
ITA No.5823/Del/2017
the person upon whom it was to be served was not sufficient to comply with a
requirements of a proper service of notice.