Tribunal Upheld Decision on Notice Service Under Income-tax Act

The Tribunal upheld the decision regarding the service of a notice under section 143(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, finding that the notice was not served by a process server on the same day it was sent. The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's contention based on the absence of evidence supporting service through a process server. The Tribunal's decision was upheld as there was no mention of service by a process server in the records seen by the CIT(A), and it was determined that no substantial question of law arose in the case.

---

---

Issues:
The issue involves the service of a notice under section 143(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 on the assessee on the same day it was sent, and whether the proceedings would be barred by time if the notice was not served on the same day.

Judgment Details:
The Revenue contended that the notice sent on 31st July, 2003 was served by registered post and not through a process server during the assessment proceedings before the authorities. However, a rectification application under section 254(2) of the Act was filed later, claiming that the notice was served through a process server on the same day. The Tribunal rejected this contention, stating it could not review the earlier order under section 254(2) of the Act.

The Revenue presented a document showing receipt of the notice by an individual with an illegible name. The assessee's counsel argued that the signature did not belong to anyone known to the assessee. The CIT(A) did not mention any notice served by a process server in his order, indicating that the document produced later was not part of the records seen by the CIT(A). Given the Revenue's consistent stance and the absence of prior mention of service through a process server, the Tribunal's decision was upheld.

Referring to a similar case, it was highlighted that there is no legal provision requiring the Tribunal to call for and peruse assessment records themselves. Based on the facts presented and discussed, it was concluded that the Tribunal did not err in relying on the available record.

The judgment concluded that no substantial question of law arose in this case.

---