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>Validity of Income Tax Act notice upheld based on effective service, dismissing challenge petition and imposing costs. Chief Justice concurs.</h1> <h3>Kundan Lal Vedi Versus Commissioner of Income Tax.</h3> The court upheld the validity of the notice served under section 34 of the Income Tax Act for re-opening assessment for the year 1942-43, finding that the ... - Issues:Validity of notice served under section 34 of the Income Tax Act for re-opening assessment for the year 1942-43. Proper service of notice to the assessee.Analysis:The judgment deals with a petition filed under section 66(2) of the Indian Income Tax Act regarding the validity of a notice served to re-open the assessment for the year 1942-43. The Income Tax Officer issued a notice under section 34 to the assessee, alleging under-assessment due to the failure to disclose necessary facts. The assessment was completed in the absence of the assessee, leading to a subsequent application for cancellation under section 27 on grounds of improper service of notice. The application was dismissed by the Income Tax Officer and upheld by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.The main contention was whether the notice served to the assessee was valid. The assessee, who was partially paralyzed, received the notice through his accountant on the 30th of March, 1951, as he was unable to sign the acknowledgement personally. Additionally, an attempt was made on the 31st of March to serve the notice directly to the assessee, which was declined. The petitioner argued that the acceptance by the accountant was not valid service as he was not authorized in writing for such purposes, and the refusal of service on the 31st should have required affixing a copy of the notice on the door of the house as per the Civil Procedure Code.The court found that the notice was effectively served when it was presented to the assessee and acknowledged by his accountant on his direction. The attempt for personal service on the 31st was deemed unnecessary. The judge opined that the service on the previous day constituted personal service under the circumstances. Thus, the court dismissed the petition, upholding the validity of the notice served, and imposed costs on the petitioner. The Chief Justice concurred with the decision, leading to the dismissal of the petition.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
