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)
Related Posts:
- Safeflex International Ltd vs. ITO (ITAT Jaipur) It is thus seen that the Special Economic Zones Act, 2005 had initially inserted sub-section (6) in section 115JB of the Act to provide that the provisions of section 115JB shall not apply to income accrued or arising on or after 1-4-2005 from any business carried on, or services rendered,…
- Krish Homes Private Limited vs. ITO (ITAT Jaipur) In such a situation, where the Assessing officer has incorrectly or erroneously applied law and income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment, the Revenue is not without remedy and resort to provisions of section 263 could have been made by the ld CIT. In fact, the revisionary jurisdiction u/s 263…
- Nawal Kishore Soni vs. ACIT (ITAT Jaipur) The payment for purchase gold is not made by assessee from his own but the same is either settled by direct payment to seller by buyer and/or payment made from advance from customer or credit from sales as per normal trade practice. The assessee admitted such profit at Rs. 45,00,000/-…
- Kaybee Pvt Ltd vs. ITO (ITAT Mumbai) Section 92A(2) governs the operation of Section 92A(1) by controlling the definition of participation in management or capital or control by one of the enterprise in the other enterprise. If a form of participation in management, capital or control is not recognized by Section 92A(2), even if it ends up…
- Unnikrishnan V S vs. ITO (ITAT Mumbai) We find that so far as the ESOP benefit is concerned, while the income has arisen to the assessee in the current year, admittedly the related rights were granted to the assessee in 2007 and in consideration for the services which were rendered by the assessee prior to the rights…
- Asha Gandhi vs. ITO (ITAT Chandigarh) In my experience as a dispenser of Justice, I have noticed that generally the violations of tax laws by new assessees do not occur because they are so desired but because of sheer lack of proper advice. Instead of letting these sparks of economic change stifle and die due to…
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.
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.
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.