Case Details

Citation(s)
2010 SLG 1832 2010 SLD 1832 (2010) 323 ITR 242
Punjab and Haryana High Court
IT APPEAL No. 448 OF 2008, JULY 29, 2008
SATISH KUMAR MITTAL AND AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, JJ.
Yogesh Putney for the Appellant

Commissioner of Income Tax

v.

AvIOil India (P.) Ltd.

Law:

Section:

I. Section 143 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Assessment - Issue of notice - Assessment year 2001-02 Resort cannot be had to section 292B to validate mandatory requirement of service as postulated in section 143(2) [In favour of assessee] Notice under section 143(2) is not only to be issued but has to be served before the expiry of 12 months from the end of the month in which the return was furnished. Resort cannot be had to section 292B to validate the mandatory requirement of service as postulated in section 143(2). Section 292B otherwise also deals with issue of notices and does not deal with service of notices. Therefore, where the requirement of section 143(2) has not been complied with, it cannot be treated as a defect in service of notice which can be cured under section 292B. II. Section 282 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Service of notice - General - Assessment year 2001-02 Notice stated to have been served by affixture was not valid where it could not be said that assessee was avoiding service of notice or there was any other reason existing whereby it could be inferred that notice could not be served in an ordinary way [In favour of assessee] For taking recourse to Order V, rules 17 and 20 of CPC dealing with service of notice by affixture, the Court/competent authority must be satisfied that the defendant is intentionally avoiding service and/or that for any reason, the summons cannot be served in the ordinary way. Before affixture, the serving officer of the summons, must use his due and reasonable diligence to find out the defendant/respondent and if the circumstances as mentioned in rule 17 exist, then and only then, the notice may be served by affixture and that too in the presence of witnesses by whom the house was identified and in whose presence the copy was affixed. Merely because the noticee in this case had not been found at the given address is not sufficient to establish that he could not be found, when there is nothing to show that reasonable efforts to find the person on whom the service was to be effected had been made. The notice stated to have been served by affixture, was not valid where it could not be said that the assessee was…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

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