CIT, HISAR vs. JIND COOP. SUGAR MILLS LTD.

The Revenue has preferred this appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “the Act”) against order dated 29.8.2008 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench ‘B’, New Delhi passed in I.T.A. No.571/Del/2006 for the assessment year 2002-03, proposing to raise following substantial questions of law:- “(i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. ITAT was right in quashing the assessment order dated 14.03.2005 on the ground that notice u/s 143(2) was not served upon the assessee within the limitation provided in this section especially when notice u/s 143(2) of the Act dated 27.10.2003 was sent through Regd. Post dated 29.10.2003 with properly addressed and prepared amount which is a presumption of effective service of notice under section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1987. And the First Appellate Authority beyond doubt has presumed that the service has been effected within 12 months of receipt of return of income / loss upon the appellant on 31.10.2003 i.e. on the third day of sending the same by Registered Post?” (ii) Whether on the facts and in circumstances of the case, the Ld. ITAT was right in admitting without recording reasons the additional evidence in the shape of original envelope bearing the stamp of Postal Authorities for service of notice produced by the assessee in support of its claim of delayed service of notice for which the AO was not given opportunity to examine the same?”

The assessee is a cooperative society engaged in the business of running sugar mill. It filed its return on 31.10.2002, declaring loss, which was processed. Thereafter, notice under Section 143(2) was sent on 27.10.2003. The Assessing Officer made additions. Appeal of the assessee was partly allowed. The Tribunal upheld the deletion and made further deletion. It was held that service of notice was beyond the period of one year of filing of the return. Service was effected on 1.11.2003. The date of service was clear from the original envelope produced by the assessee.

We have heard learned counsel for the appellant.

Only contention raised on behalf of the appellant is that presumption under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 should have been drawn and that the assessee should not have been allowed to give additional evidence in the shape of original return.

We do not find any merit in the submission.

Presumption under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act is only with regard to notice being received and not as to date of receipt. Permitting the original envelope to be produced, cannot be held to have caused any prejudice to the revenue. In any case, this contention is in the realm of appreciation of evidence. No substantial question of law arises.

The appeal is dismissed. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE August 19, 2009