High Court Of Delhi
CIT vs. Narain Dass
Asst. Year 1967-68, 1968-69, 1969-70
Arijit Pasayat, C.J. & D.K. Jain, J.
IT Ref. Nos. 67 to 69 of 1980
23rd October, 2000Â
Sanjiv Khanna with Ajay Jha & Ms. Prem Lata Bansal, for the Revenue : None, for the Assessee
ARIJIT PASAYAT, C.J. :
These three references involve identical questions which have been referred at the instance of the Revenue under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”), by the Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench-A (in short “the Tribunal”). The question pertaining to the asst. yrs. 1967-68 to 1969-70, is as under : “Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in upholding the AACâs order annulling the assessments made by the ITO under s. 147(a) for the asst. yrs. 1967-68 to 1969-70 ?”
We have heard learned counsel for the Revenue. Nobody appeared on behalf of the respondent in spite of service of notice.
In all these references the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the service of notice was not legally done because all the legal heirs of the deceased-assessee were not notified and notices proposing to take action under s. 147(a) were not given to all of them. The matter stands concluded by the decision of the apex Court in CIT vs. Jai Prakash Singh (1996) 132 CTR (SC) 262 : (1996) 219 ITR 737 (SC) : TC 44R.313, wherein it was held that no fallacy can be attached to the action of serving notice on one of the legal representatives, and that was sufficient compliance as the defect, if any, emanated from irregularity. In the circumstances, we answer the question referred in the negative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.
4. The Tribunal will do well to remit the matter back to the ITO for proceeding afresh after notice to all the legal representatives.
[Citation : 249 ITR 148]