| Case ID |
0be9f75e-2bdc-4d94-99d8-7bbf94b810e1 |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
IT APPEAL NO. 347 OF 2006- |
| Decision Date |
Mar 25, 2008 |
| Hearing Date |
|
| Decision |
The Delhi High Court held that the notice issued under section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was deemed to have been served upon the assessee within the prescribed period. The presumption of proper service was upheld as the notice dispatched by speed post was not returned undelivered, and the assessee did not provide any affidavit to rebut this presumption. Consequently, the Tribunal's finding that the notice was not served within the prescribed period was set aside, and the appeal was allowed in favor of the revenue. |
| Summary |
In the case of Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi-II, New Delhi v. Madhsy Films (P.) Ltd., the Delhi High Court addressed the issue of whether a notice issued under section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, had been properly served to the assessee within the prescribed period for the assessment year 2001-02. The assessee had filed a return declaring a loss, after which notices were issued on 23-10-2002 and 24-12-2002 via speed post. The assessee did not respond to these notices, leading the Assessing Officer to issue another notice under section 142(1) on 29-1-2003, which also went unanswered, resulting in an assessment under section 144. The assessee challenged the assessment, claiming that the notice under section 143(2) was not served within the prescribed period. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) upheld the assessment order, but the Tribunal quashed it, stating that the notice was not served within the limitation period. On appeal, the Delhi High Court examined Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, which deems service by post to have been effected if properly addressed, prepaid, and posted. Since the notice was dispatched and not returned undelivered, and the assessee did not file an affidavit to contest receipt, the presumption of proper service stood. The Court held that the notice was duly served within the prescribed period, thereby setting aside the Tribunal's decision and allowing the appeal in favor of the revenue. This case underscores the legal interpretation of service of notices under the Income Tax Act and the reliance on statutory presumptions in the absence of rebutting evidence by the assessee. |
| Court |
Delhi High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi-II, New Delhi,
Madhsy Films (P.) Ltd.
|
| Judges |
V.B. GUPTA,
MADAN B. LOKUR
|
| Lawyers |
Ms. P.L. Bansal,
Rajnish Goyal
|
| Petitioners |
Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi-II, New Delhi
|
| Respondents |
Madhsy Films (P.) Ltd.
|
| Citations |
2008 SLD 3064,
(2008) 301 ITR 69
|
| Other Citations |
Not available
|
| Laws Involved |
Income Tax Act, 1961
|
| Sections |
143,
282
|