| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2010 SLG 1833 2010 SLD 1833 (2010) 323 ITR 249 |
Delhi High Court
IT APPEAL No. 441 OF 2010, APRIL 13, 2010
BADAR DURREZ AHMED AND V.K., JAIN, JJ.
Society For Worldwide Inter Bank Financial, Telecommunications Sanjeev Sabharwal for the Appellant.
IT APPEAL No. 441 OF 2010, APRIL 13, 2010
BADAR DURREZ AHMED AND V.K., JAIN, JJ.
Society For Worldwide Inter Bank Financial, Telecommunications Sanjeev Sabharwal for the Appellant.
Director of Income Tax
v.
Society For Worldwide Inter Bank Financial, Telecommunications
Law:
Section:
Section 143 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Assessment - Issue of notice - Assessment year 1997-98 Where both Commissioner (Appeals) and Appellate Tribunal had returned a concurrent and clear finding of fact that notice under section 143(2) was issued on 23-3-2000, while return itself was filed on 27-3-2000, notice was not a valid one as provisions of section 143(2) make it clear that notice can only be served after Assessing Officer has examined return filed by assessee [In favour of assessee] The provisions of section 143(2) make it clear that the notice can only be served after the Assessing Officer has examined the return filed by the assessee. Both the Commissioner (Appeals) and Appellate Tribunal had returned a concurrent and clear finding of fact that as the notice under section 143(2) was issued on 23-3-2000, while the return was filed on 27-3-2000, the notice was not a valid one. The revenue's contention was that the notice, in fact, was issued on 27-3-2000, and not on 23-3-2000, the date which was recorded on the notice itself. Held that, the revenue had stated that the return was filed by the assessee on 27-3-2000, and the notice under section 143(2) was served upon the authorized representative of the assessee by hand when the authorized representative of the assessee came and filed return. However, the date of the notice was mistakenly mentioned as 23-3-2000. Assuming the aforesaid to be true, the notice was served on the authorized representative simultaneously on his filing the return which clearly indicated that the notice was ready even prior to the filing of the return. Thus, even if one took the statement of the Assessing Officer at face value, it would amount to gross violation of the scheme of section 143(2). The notice was thus not valid. Sanjeev Sabharwal for the Appellant. JUDGMENT Badar Durrez Ahmed, J. - C.M. No. 3927 of 2010 2. Thedelay in re-filing the appeal is condoned. 3. This application stands disposed of. I.T.A. 441 of 2010 4. The Revenue is in appeal against the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal's order dated February 27, 2009, in I.T.A. No. 2512/DELHI/2001 pertaining to the assessment year 1997-98. 5. The only issue sought to be…
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