High Court Of Delhi
CIT vs. Vardhman Estate (P) Ltd.
Section 143(2)
Vikramajit Sen & Dr. S. Muralidhar, JJ.
IT Appeal Nos. 1248 & 1269 of 2006
25th September, 2006
Counsel Appeared
R.D. Jolly with Vishnu Sharma, for the Appellant : Salil Aggarwal with Prakash Kumar, for the Respondent
JUDGMENT
by the court :
We have seen the records of the IT Appeal No. 1088 of 2005 [reported as CIT vs. Bhan Textiles (P) Ltd. (2007) 208 CTR (Del) 253—Ed.] where the following substantial question of law has been formulated :
“Whether the actual service of a notice under s. 143(2) of the IT Act, 1961, as it stood before amendment, after the date prescribed in the said provision would relate back to the date of issue of the notice ?”
It is palpably evident that certain typographical errors have occurred in framing the question of law. In our view, it should read as follows :
“Whether the actual service of a notice under s. 143(2) of the IT Act, issued before the date prescribed in the said provision, would relate back to the date of the issuance of the notice ?”
So far as this question is concerned it stands answered on all fours by the decision in CIT vs. Lunar Diamonds Ltd. (2005) 197 CTR (Del) 312 : (2006) 281 ITR 1 (Del). The Bench had taken note of and rejected the contention of the Revenue that the words “served” and “issued” are synonymous and interchangeable. In other words, this Court negatived the argument that the word “issued” must be read as “served”. We are in respectful agreement with this view.
In the present case, the return was filed on 31st Oct., 2001, and in terms of s. 143(2) the notice had to be served on the assessee on or before 31st Oct., 2002. The argument is that there were two modes of service, i.e., by speed post as well as by a process server. The date of service, so far as speed post is concerned, is said to be 1st Nov., 2002, but so far as the process server is concerned it is stated to have been effected on 31st Oct., 2002. The Tribunal has accepted the contention of the assessee that the date of service through speed post was 1st Nov., 2002. Even before us, the appellant has not produced any material to suggest that the notice sent by speed post was served on any earlier date. On the other hand, it is sought to be contended that since the notice was dispatched by speed post on 30th Oct., 2002, that should be the deemed date of service. We are unable to agree. So far as service by speed post is concerned, one point stands covered against the Revenue in CIT vs. Lunar Diamonds Ltd. (supra).
So far as the service through the process server is concerned, the document which is Annex. C to this paper book had not been filed before the Tribunal when the first order dt. 15th March, 2005, came to be passed. Mr. Jolly contends that the Tribunal was in error in rejecting the rectification application on the grounds that Annex. C did not form part of the record of the case, and that the Tribunal ought to have called for and perused the assessment record of which the said document forms part. On a query as to whether there is any rule or regulation mandating that the Tribunal calls for the assessment records while considering an appeal, Mr. Jolly answers in the negative.
In view of CIT vs. Lunar Diamonds Ltd. (supra) no substantial question of law arises. Dismissed.
[Citation : 287 ITR 368]
