Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
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
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 3/3