COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. HARISH J.PUNJABI

PDF · subscribers
ITA - 942 / 2007HC Delhi01 October 20073 pages
For Petitioner: JAGDISH RAI GOEL
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court found that the cited Supreme Court decisions were distinguishable on facts. It agreed that admittedly no notice had been served on the Assessee, rendering the assessment order void.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against an ITAT order that held assessment proceedings void because the Assessee was not served with notices under Section 147 and 148 of the Income Tax Act. The Revenue argued there's a distinction between issuance and service of notice, citing Supreme Court decisions.

What were the issues?

Whether assessment proceedings are void if the Assessee is not served with notices under Section 147 and 148 of the Income Tax Act. Whether Supreme Court decisions on notice issuance and service apply to cases where no notice was served at all.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 148,Section 260-A,Section 143(2)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

![](_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

JTA 942/2007

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

... Appellant

Through Mr. J.R. Goel, Advocate

versus

HARISH J.PUNJABI

.... Respondent

Through Mr. Satyen Sethi with Mr. M.K. Giri, Advocate

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN B. LOKUR HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR

ORDER

01.10.2007

CM No. 12713/2007 (detay)

For the reasons stated in the application, the delay is condoned.

Application stands disposed of.

<u>ΓΓΑ No. 942/2007</u>

In this appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act'),

ITA 942/2007

page 1/3

the Revenue is aggrieved by an order dated 20th October, 2006 passed by uncome Tax Appellate Tribunal, ('Tribunal') Delhi Bench 'D' in ITA No 4923/Del/2003 relevant for the Assessment Year 1996-97.

The Assessee was not served with the notice under Section 147 and 148 of the Act and on this factual ground, the Tribunal held that the proceedings for assessment were void.

Learned counsel for the Revenue referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in R.K. Upadhyaya v. Shanabhai P. Patel [1987] 166 ITR 163 to contend that there is a distinction between the service of notice and issuance of notice. In that case, there was no dispute about the fact that notice under Section 147 of the Act was issued to the Assessee by registered post on 31<sup>st</sup> March, 1970 and was received by the Assessee on 3<sup>rd</sup> April, 1970. In the instant case, however, the notice was not sent by registered post nor served upon the Assessee through any other manner whatsoever.

Reliance has also been placed to the decision of the Supreme Court in

1TA 942/2007

page 2/3

![](_page_2_Picture_1.jpeg)

![](_page_2_Picture_2.jpeg)

Commissioner of Income Tax v. Jai Prakash Singh [1996] 219 ITR 7.

contend that the assessment order is null and void. In that case one of the legal representatives of the deceased was served with a notice under Section 143 (2) of the Act. In the instant case, admittedly no notice has been served on the Assessee. The cited decision is distinguishable on facts.

No substantial question of law arises in this appeal.

Dismissed.

/ MADAN B. LOKUR, J

S. MURALIDHAR, J

OCTOBER 01, 2007 rk

![](_page_2_Picture_10.jpeg)

page 3/3

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →