| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2012 SLG 3137 2012 SLD 3137 (2012) 340 ITR 463 |
Delhi High Court
SANJIV KHANNA AND R.V. EASWAR, JJ.
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
SANJIV KHANNA AND R.V. EASWAR, JJ.
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
Venad Properties P. Ltd.
v.
Commissioner of IncomE tax
Law:
Section:
NOVEMBER 11, 2011 Section 282, read with section 158BC, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Service of notice - Whether object and purpose of service of notice/summon is to inform and intimate addressee about proceedings and date of hearing; if notice is served or received by party concerned and this is established/proved, then manner and mode of service is not relevant - Held, yes - Whether where there was ample evidence and material to show that notice under section 158BC was served/received by assessee and there was implied, if not direct, admission by assessee that block assessment notice had been received by it in view of its reply to subsequent notice issued under section 142, it could not challenge block assessment order on ground that notice under section 158BC was not served to it - Held, yes [In favour of revenue] FACTS The assessee-company challenged the block assessment order on the grounds that: (1) no search under section 132 was conducted on the assessee; (2) notice under section 158BC was not served on the assessee and, therefore, the block assessment was void ab initio; and (3) the Tribunal had erred in holding that even if the notice under section 158BC was not served on the assessee, it amounted to a mere procedural irregularity which could be rectified and was not an illegality. HELD The assessee along with the appeal has placed on record, photocopy of the panchnama. Column 1 of the said panchnama, in addition to other names, mentions the name of the assessee. Form No. 35, i.e., the authorization under section 132 placed on record also mentions the name of the assessee. In view of the aforesaid, the first contention of the assessee is factually incorrect and has been rightly rejected by the Tribunal. [Para 3] The second contention relates to service of the notice dated 17-10-1997 under section 158BC. The said notice was addressed to the principal officer of the assessee at Trivandrum, Kerala. The contention of the assessee is that this notice was not served; there is no proof of service; and the finding of the Tribunal is perverse. [Para 5] The revenue had not placed on record any postal receipt for service of the notice or an affidavit or…
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492