| COURT: | Supreme Court |
| CORAM: | R. Banumathi J, Ranjan Gogoi J |
| SECTION(S): | 143(2) |
| GENRE: | Domestic Tax |
| CATCH WORDS: | Non-service of s. 143(2) notice |
| COUNSEL: | Imtiaz Ahmed |
| DATE: | February 19, 2018 (Date of pronouncement) |
| DATE: | February 27, 2018 (Date of publication) |
| AY: | 2005-06 |
| FILE: | Click here to download the file in pdf format |
| CITATION: | |
| S. 143(2) service of notice: If the assessee is not available to take service of the s. 143(2) notice, service on the authorized representative is sufficient to draw inference of deemed service of notice on the assessee. The fact that the authorized representative is disowned by the assessee is irrelevant | |
(i) Admittedly, under the provisions of Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (as then in force) the notice has to be served on the respondent – Assessee latest by 30th October, 2006. In the present case, notice was issued on 16th October, 2006 which was dispatched on 18th October, 2006 by registered post. The materials on record indicate that on two occasions the notice sent by registered post could not be served on the respondent – Assessee as he was not available and that it was served on the authorized representative of the respondent – Assessee on 19th October, 2006.
(ii) The question, therefore, that arises in the writ petition was whether in such circumstances the requirement under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was met by the Revenue. The High Court answered the question in the negative taking the view that what is required to be satisfied by the Revenue is service of notice and not mere issuance thereof.
(iii) It will not be necessary for us to decide the aforesaid question in the present case which is being kept open for decision in an appropriate case. We have taken the aforesaid view as the present case is capable of being resolved on its own peculiar facts.
(iv) The non-availability of the respondent – Assessee to receive the notice sent by registered post as many as on two occasions and service of notice on 19th October, 2006 on the authorized representative of the respondent Assessee whom the respondent Assessee now disowns, in our considered view, is sufficient to draw an inference of deemed service of notice on the respondent – Assessee and sufficient compliance of the requirement of Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Cases referred
Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and another Vs. Hotel Blue Moon (2010) 3 SCC 259
CIT Vs. Sahara India Savings and Investment Corporation Ltd.(2010) 321 ITR 371(SC)
For independent thoughts instantly shared >
https://www.facebook.com/swaminathanv3/posts/1594903163919297
courtesy