CIT vs. SEHGAL INVESTMENTS PVT LTD

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI #88 . ITA 925/2010 . . . . CIT ..... Appellant Through Ms.Suruchi Aggarwal, Adv. . . versus . . SEHGAL INVESTMENTS PVT LTD ..... Respondent Through . CORAM: HON?BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN . O R D E R 19.07.2010 . In this appeal preferred under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for brevity ?the Act?) the revenue has called in question the legal propriety of the order dated 23rd November, 2009 passed by the Tribunal in ITA No. 1351/Del/2009 pertaining to the assessment year 2003-2004 The singular question that arose before the Tribunal was whether after the case of the assessee/respondent was chosen for scrutiny due notice was issued under Section 143(2) of the Act. The Tribunal in paragraph 5 has held as follows: - ITA No.925/2010 page 1 of 3 ?We have heard the rival submissions and have gone through the material available on record. We find that it is noted by Ld CIT(A) on page No. 2 of the assessment order that carbon copy of one notice u/s 143(2) dated 13.5.2004 is available in the Assessing Officer?s file fixing the matter for 28.5.2004 and two addresses are noted on this notice but there is no evidence of dispatch/service of notice available on record. It is further noted by the Ld CIT(A) that no postal receipt is available in the assessment record for dispatch of these notices and there is no evidence available showing that these notices have been served on any person. After considering all the facts and the assessment folder, a clear finding is given by Ld CIT(A) that there is no evidence for service of notice u/s 143(2) is available with the Assessing Officer. Ld DR of the revenue also could not bring any material on record to show that the notice was served on the assessee. The finding of Ld CIT(A) regarding non service of notice remains un-controverted. Facts in the case of Mayawati (supra) are different. In this case, efforts were made to serve notice at Delhi address and when it was known that the address is changed to Lucknow, notice was sent by Speed Post to Luknow but in the present case, there is no dispatch by Speed Post / Registered. with AD and no service by any other mode within prescribed time. Hence, this judgment is not applicable in the present case. Under these facts, we find no reason to interfere in the order of Ld. CIT(A) and hence we uphold the same.? . . . In our considered opinion, the whole case hinges on facts as the Tribunal has categorically recorded a finding that there is no evidence of dispatch/service of notice which is available on record. . . . . ITA No.925/2010 page 2 of 3 Consequently, the appeal being sans merit stands dismissed in limine. . . . CHIEF JUSTICE . . . JULY 19, 2010 MANMOHAN, J kapil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ITA No.925/2010 page 3 of 3 .