High Court Of Punjab And Harayana
CIT vs. Vishal Gupta
Sections 143(2), 260A
N.K. Sodhi & Virender Singh, JJ
ITA Nos. 132 and 133 of 2002
17th September, 2002
Counsel Appeared
R.P. Sawhney with N.G. Sharma, for the Appellant
JUDGMENT
N.K. SODHI, J. :
This order will dispose of two IT Appeals Nos. 132 and 133 of 2002, in which common questions of law and facts arise.
The only question that was raised before the Tribunal and in fact throughout the proceedings by the assessee was that the notice under s. 143(2) of the IT Act, 1961, had not been validly served. It is on record that a notice under this provision was initially served on Smt. Radhika Gupta on 17th April, 1998. Admittedly, Smt. Radhika Gupta has no concern with the assessee. Notices were again sent by registered post on 29th April, 1998, but these were sent to a wrong address as the address to which they were sent was not given by the assessee. It is not known how the Department obtained this address. It is clear from the finding recorded by the Tribunal in para 11 of its order that the address as furnished by the assessee was C/o. Gupta and Gupta, Agro Tech., Near Police Post, Sadar Bazar, Karnal, and the notices were sent at the address of Hindustan Agro Tech. 106, HSIDC, Sector 3, Karnal. In view of these findings, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the notice under s. 143(2) of the Act had not been validly served and, therefore, the assessments were cancelled. The question whether notice was validly served or not is a pure question of fact and, in our opinion, no question of law much less a substantial question of law arises from the order of the Tribunal. Consequently, these appeals are dismissed.
[Citation : 259 ITR 704]
