| Case ID |
e8ebc978-14d7-4677-bead-2399f567355d |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
IT APPEAL No. 83(D) OF 2003 |
| Decision Date |
Oct 22, 2003 |
| Hearing Date |
|
| Decision |
The appeal was dismissed as the assessee had not provided his new address to the Tribunal, which resulted in the Tribunal being unable to serve notice at the changed address. The court held that the assessee could not benefit from his own mistake of not updating his address. Moreover, the court emphasized that under the Income-tax Act, there is no provision for a review of orders under the guise of rectification, and the appeal lacked merit. Thus, the initial decision made by the Tribunal was upheld. |
| Summary |
In the case of IT Appeal No. 83(D) of 2003, the Allahabad High Court addressed issues surrounding the Income-tax Act, specifically section 254 which deals with powers of the Appellate Tribunal. The case revolved around Anupam Sushil Garg, who contested an ex parte order by the Tribunal, claiming he did not receive notice due to a change of address. The court ruled against Garg, noting that he failed to provide evidence of his new address and emphasized that one cannot benefit from their own mistake. The ruling reinforced the principle that statutory provisions do not allow for review under the guise of rectification, and the appeal was ultimately dismissed. This case highlights the importance of proper communication and procedural compliance in tax matters, making it essential for taxpayers to keep their contact information updated to avoid complications with legal proceedings. |
| Court |
Allahabad High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
Not available
|
| Judges |
Dr. B.S. Chauhan,
D.P. Gupta
|
| Lawyers |
Piyush Agrawal,
Mahajan
|
| Petitioners |
Anupam Sushil Garg
|
| Respondents |
Commissioner of Income tax
|
| Citations |
2003 SLD 3407 = (2003) 265 ITR 474
|
| Other Citations |
Atul Castings Ltd. v. Bawa Gurvachan Singh AIR 2001 SC 1684,
Smt. Baljeet Jolly v. CIT [2001] 250 ITR 113 (Delhi),
Bharat Singh v. State of Haryana AIR 1988 SC 2181,
Bishwanath Prasad & Sons v. CIT [1987] 163 ITR 715 (All.),
Smt. Chitra Kumari v. Union of India AIR 2001 SC 1237,
Fox v. Bishop of Chester [1824] 2 B & C 635,
Jagir Singh v. Ranbir Singh AIR 1979 SC 381,
Jose v. Alice [1996] 6 SCC 342,
G.S. Lamba v. Union of India [1985] 2 SCC 604,
Larsen & Toubro Ltd. v. State of Gujarat [1998] 92 Comp. Cas 373 (SC); AIR 1998 SC 1608,
M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath AIR 2000 SC 1997,
Montreal Street Railway Co. v. Normandin AIR 1917 PC 142,
National Buildings Construction Corpn. v. S. Raghunathan AIR 1998 SC 2779,
National & Grindlays Bank Ltd. v. Dharamshi Vallabhji [1966] 2 All ER 626 (PC),
Narender Chadha v. Union of India AIR 1986 SC 638,
Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani [1999] 1 SCC 141,
J.N. Sahni v. ITAT [2002] 257 ITR 16 (Delhi),
Seth Madan Lal Modi v. CIT [2003] 261 ITR 49 (Delhi),
T. Srinivasan v. T. Varalakshmi [1998] 3 SCC 112,
State of U.P. v. Chandra Prakash Pandey AIR 2001 SC 1298,
Vithal N. Shetti v. Prakash N. Rudrakar [2003] 1 SCC 18
|
| Laws Involved |
Income-tax Act, 1961
|
| Sections |
254
|