Subscribe To Our Free Newsletter:

ITO vs. Shubhashri Panicker (ITAT Jaipur)

COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: June 26, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: June 30, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: 2003-04
FILE: Click here to download the file in pdf format
CITATION:
S. 282: The postal authorities are the agent of the recipient. There is a presumption that handing over notice to the postal department means that it has been served on the assessee

The provisions of Section 282 of the Act with regard to the service of notice have been duly complied with by the Revenue. Since the notice u/s 143(2) of the Act has not been received back unserved within thirty days of its issuance, there would be presumption under the law that notice has been duly served upon the assessee. The notice was under transmission by handing over to the postal authority who acted as an agent of the recipient. The speed post notice has not been returned mentioning the address as wrong or undelivered which is a standard practice of the postal Department. Assessee’s AR in the initial hearings never indicated that 148 notice was not properly served. The lame objection is taken at the fag end of assessment, which clearly smack of a design (CIT vs. Yamu Industries Ltd. 167 Taxman 67 (Del) and ITO vs. Shri Sarabh (Saurabh) Charan (ITA No.1119/JP/2011 dated 5-12-2014) followed)

3 comments on “ITO vs. Shubhashri Panicker (ITAT Jaipur)
  1. something wrong .
    how can you work on presumptions, when facts are mandatory?

    handing over to posts could never be a meaningful presumption that you delivered to the addressee besides presumptions not trustworthy fact, that the dept delivered, how do you know whether the department correctly addressed the letter/notice , there judgement is basically wrong or a very insecure judgement.

    the judgement could be contested before high court and even hon supreme court, as the judgement is against the fundamental rights principles.

    certainly the ITAT JUDGEMENT WOULD BE QUASHED.

    • CA Anoop Bhatia says:

      Such judgments should be seen with reference to the relevant facts and circumstances. However prima-facie handing over the notice to the postal authorities only should not be treated a serving on the assessee.

  2. SURAJIT GHOSH says:

    IF THE SITUATION REVERSED, CAN THE DEPARTMENT ACCEPTS THE ASSESSEE’S CLAIM THAT DOCUMENTS AS SEND TO DEPT. THROUGH POST, DEEMED THAT IT HAS DELIVERED TO DEPT IRRESPECTIVE OF FACT WHETHER IT WAS ACTUALLY DELIVERED. PRACTICALLY, WHEN WE SEND ITR-V TO CPC THROUGH POST BUT FAILED TO REACH TO CPC WHY CPC ASKED TO RESUBMIT THE SAME. THE MEMBER OF ITAT SHOULD BE PRACTICAL ENOUGH AND MUST REALISE THAT WHEN ACT SAID THAT DEPARTMENT REQUIRE TO SERVE THE NOTICE TO THE ASSESSEE, ALL OF THE MACHINERY (EITHER BY DEPARTMENTAL PEON OR POST OFFICE PEON) DEPLOYED IN THE PROCESSING OF SERVING THE NOTICE IS DEEMED TO OWN OR HIRE BY THE DEPARTMENT AND THEREFORE THOSE PEON SHOULD BE TREATED THE AGENT OF DEPARTMENT BUT NOT OF ASSESSEE.

Leave a Reply

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

*