Click Here For Best Books On Taxation & Law. Upto 60% Off On Select Titles. Free Shipping & Pay On Delivery!
 

Click Here To Subscribe To Our Free Newsletter

This section is now closed. Click here for new judgements

Home › All Judgements › ITO vs. Dharam Narain (Supreme Court)

ITO vs. Dharam Narain (Supreme Court)

Posted on by editor — 1 Comment ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
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)

Related Judgements

  1. Premier Breweries Ltd vs. CIT (Supreme Court) 

    The question that was posed by the High Court was whether acceptance of the agreements, affidavits and proof of payment would debar the assessing authority to go into the question whether the expenses claimed would still be allowable under Section 37 of the Act. This is a question which…
  2. M/s Ganapathy & Co vs. CIT (Supreme Court) 

    It is well settled that issues of fact determined by the Tribunal are final and the High Court in exercise of its reference jurisdiction should not act as an appellate Court to review such findings of fact arrived at by the Tribunal by a process of reappreciation and reappraisal…
  3. Ashok Prapann Sharma vs. CIT (Supreme Court) 

    A declaration in the return filed by the Assessee under the Wealth Tax Act would certainly be a relevant fact for determination of the cost of acquisition which under Section 55(2) of the Act to be determined by a determination of fair market value. Equally relevant for the purposes…
  4. Maharao Bhim Singh of Kota vs. CIT (Supreme Court) 

    Though principle of res judicata does not apply to income-tax proceedings and each assessment year is an independent year in itself, yet, in our view, in the absence of any valid and convincing reason, there was no justification on the part of the Revenue to have pursued the same…
  5. DCIT vs. Ace Multi Axes Systems Ltd (Supreme Court) 

    The observations in the impugned order are that the object of legislature is to encourage industrial expansion which implies that incentive should remain applicable even where on account of industrial expansion small scale industrial undertakings ceases to be small scale industrial undertakings. We are unable to appreciate the logic…
One comment on “ITO vs. Dharam Narain (Supreme Court)”
  1. vswami says:
    February 28, 2018 at 8:13 am

    For independent thoughts instantly shared >
    https://www.facebook.com/swaminathanv3/posts/1594903163919297

    courtesy

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*