High Court Of Delhi
CIT vs. Harish J. Punjabi
Section 147, 148, 260A
Asst. Year 1996-97
Madan B. Lokur & Dr. S. Muralidhar, JJ.
IT Appeal No. 942 of 2007
1st October, 2007
Counsel Appeared :
J.R. Goel, for the Appellant : Satyen Sethi & M.K. Giri, for the Respondent
ORDER
By the court :
CM No. 12713/2007 (delay) For the reasons stated in the application, the delay is condoned. Application stands disposed of.
ITA No. 942 of 2007
In this appeal under s. 260A of the IT Act, 1961 (‘Act’), the Revenue is aggrieved by an order dt. 20th Oct., 2006 passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (‘Tribunal’), Delhi Bench ‘D’, in ITA No. 4923/Del/2003 relevant for the asst. yr. 1996-97.
The assessee was not served with the notice under ss. 147 and 148 of the Act and on this factual ground, the Tribunal held that the proceedings for assessment were void.
Learned counsel for the Revenue referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in R.K. Upadhyaya vs. Shanabhai P. Patel (1987) 62 CTR (SC) 17 : (1987) 166 ITR 163 (SC) to contend that there is a distinction between the service of notice and issuance of notice. In that case, there was no dispute about the fact that notice under s. 147 of the Act was issued to the assessee by registered post on 31st March, 1970 and was received by the assessee on 3rd April, 1970. In the instant case, however, the notice was not sent by registered post nor served upon the assessee through any other manner whatsoever. Reliance has also been placed to the decision of the Supreme Court in CIT vs. Jai Prakash Singh (1996) 132 CTR (SC) 262 : (1996) 219 ITR 737 (SC) to contend that the assessment order is null and void. In that case one of the legal representatives of the deceased was served with a notice under s. 143(2) of the Act. In the instant case, admittedly, no notice has been served on the assessee. The cited decision is distinguishable on facts.
No substantial question of law arises in this appeal. Dismissed.
[Citation : 297 ITR 424]
