Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the service of notice under Section 143(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 on the assessee's old address, despite prior intimation of change of address, amounted to valid service within limitation so as to sustain the assessment.
Analysis: A notice sent by post can attract the statutory presumption of service only when it is properly addressed, prepaid and posted. The assessee had informed the Assessing Officer of the new address well before the limitation period expired, yet the notice dispatched on 30 November 2007 was addressed to the old address. In such circumstances, the presumption under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 could not be invoked. The later notice sent to the correct address on 11 December 2007 was beyond the prescribed period, and the assessee had objected at the earliest stage, so Section 292BB of the Income-tax Act, 1961 did not cure the defect.
Conclusion: The notice under Section 143(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was not validly served within time, the scrutiny assessment was void, and the Revenue's appeal failed.
Final Conclusion: The assessment could not be sustained because the mandatory jurisdictional notice was not duly served within the statutory period.
Ratio Decidendi: For a notice sent by post to be deemed served, it must be properly addressed to the correct address known to the Department; a wrongly addressed notice does not satisfy the statutory requirement and cannot validate the assessment.