TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Invalid Service of Assessment Notice Under Section 148: Impact on Jurisdiction</h1> <h3>Commissioner of Income Tax Versus M/s Harsingar Gutkha Pvt. Ltd.</h3> Commissioner of Income Tax Versus M/s Harsingar Gutkha Pvt. Ltd. - TMI Issues:1. Validity of notice under section 148 for assessment year 1999-2000.2. Implications of notice service on Sri O. P. Nehru.3. Interpretation of Order 29 Rule 2 of CPC for notice service.4. Jurisdiction of A.O. in absence of valid notice service.5. Validity of assessment order under section 143(3)/147.Issue 1: Validity of notice under section 148 for assessment year 1999-2000:The High Court considered whether the notice issued under section 148 on 25.02.2004 was validly served on the assessee. The Tribunal observed that the notice was not validly served, leading to the A.O. lacking jurisdiction to make the assessment. The department contended that the notice was served at the registered office of the assessee company, which was acknowledged by Sri O. P. Nehru, and thus, the service was valid under Order 29 Rule 2 of CPC.Issue 2: Implications of notice service on Sri O. P. Nehru:The department argued that Sri O. P. Nehru, as a legal officer of the assessee company, had implied authority to receive the notice, supported by his past compliance with notices. The assessee's counsel countered that Sri Nehru was not authorized to receive the notice and that the notice was not served through post, raising questions about the validity of service.Issue 3: Interpretation of Order 29 Rule 2 of CPC for notice service:The department relied on Order 29 Rule 2 of CPC, stating that service at the registered office of the assessee was sufficient, even if Sri Nehru was not authorized to receive the notice. The High Court analyzed the provisions of Order 29 Rule 2 and considered whether the service was valid based on the prescribed modes of service.Issue 4: Jurisdiction of A.O. in absence of valid notice service:The Tribunal's decision to set aside the assessment order due to lack of valid notice service raised questions about the A.O.'s jurisdiction. The department argued that the technical ground should not invalidate the assessment order, especially when the assessee voluntarily participated in the proceedings.Issue 5: Validity of assessment order under section 143(3)/147:The High Court examined the validity of the assessment order passed under section 143(3)/147 in light of the notice service issue. It considered precedents and legal principles related to notice service, participation in proceedings, and the rectification of procedural irregularities.In conclusion, the High Court set aside the Tribunal's order and remanded the matter back to the A.O. for a decision on merit within a specified timeframe. The Court ruled in favor of the revenue, allowing the department's appeal based on the analysis of notice service, participation in proceedings, and procedural irregularities.
TaxTMI 