Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Agricultural Market Committee

Reserved On : 18.08.2025 Delivered On : 19.09.2025

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD INCOME TAX APPEAL No. - 435 of 2012 Court No. - 40 HON'BLE SARAL SRIVASTAVA, J. HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR SINGH DESHWAL, J. Delivered by Hon'ble Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal, J. 1. Heard Sri Ankur Agarwal, Advocate, holding brief of Sri Rahul Agarwal, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Manu Ghildiyal, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. Present income tax appeal has been filed u/s 260A of Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 1961') against the order dated 16.11.2011 passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Agra Bench, Agra for the A.Y. 2003-04. 3. Present appeal was admitted on 27.03.2012 on the following substantial questions of law: "1. Whether the finding of the Tribunal that the notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act had been validly served on the appellant, by holding that the findings recorded in the Assessment Order and in the first appellate order were incorrect only because the envelope containing the unserved notice could not be found in the original records, is perverse and liable to be set aside? 2. Whether in view of the report of the Inspector (sent by the Assessing Officer to effect service of notice on the appellant) that the whereabouts of the appellant could not be ascertained and in absence of the Assessing Officer acting on that report by taking steps to serve the appellant through affixture, etc. on his last known address, the procedure prescribed for service of notice under Section 282 of the Income Tax Act stood complied with and the Tribunal is justified in holding that the notice was validly served on the appellant?" 4. In the connected case, this court has already decided both the above substantial questions of law in favour of the appellant on the ground that for invoking the presumption of service by post u/s 27 Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Rahul Agarwal Counsel for Respondent(s) : Manu Ghildiyal Mahesh Gautam .....Appellant(s) Commissioner Of Income Tax .....Respondent(s)

of General Clauses Act, 1897 read with Section 214(f) of the Evidence Act, 1872, speed post cannot be considered equivalent to the registered post and it is only the registered post which can be said to be valid service for the deemed service of notice u/s 148 of the Act, 1961. In the present case, notice was sent through speed post not by the registered post and there is no evidence that same was served personally. 5. In view of the reasoning given in the connected Income Tax Appeal No.436 of 2012, present appeal is allowed and the order dated 16.11.2011 passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Agra Bench, Agra for the A.Y. 2003-04 is hereby set-aside. September 19, 2025 S.C. IAPL No. 435 of 2012 2 (Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal,J.) (Saral Srivastava,J.) Digitally signed by :- SHUBHAM CHAURASIA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad