Penalty on exchange vacated for lack of evidence that exchange authorized subsidiaries' investments; Regulations 43(1) 2012 and 38(2) 2018 inapplicabl...
Petitioner not an eligible assessee under s.144C(15)(b); draft and final assessments under s.144C(1)/s.143(3)/s.144B quashed and penalty show-cause no...
The HC held in favour of the appellant that reassessment proceedings under s.148 were void for want of valid service of notice. The court found the record lacked the registered-post envelope and that issuance by speed post without acknowledgment did not satisfy the statutory requirement of "post" for invoking the presumption of service under s.27 of the Evidence Act; accordingly the presumption could not be invoked. Further, service by the Income Tax Officer was defective because the notice was not affixed at the assessee's last known address nor personally served as required by Order V r.17 CPC and Part II of s.282(i), rendering service invalid and relief granted to the appellant.
The HC held in favour of the appellant that reassessment proceedings under s.148 were void for want of valid service of notice. The court found the record lacked the registered-post envelope and that issuance by speed post without acknowledgment did not satisfy the statutory requirement of "post" for invoking the presumption of service under s.27 of the Evidence Act; accordingly the presumption could not be invoked. Further, service by the Income Tax Officer was defective because the notice was not affixed at the assessee's last known address nor personally served as required by Order V r.17 CPC and Part II of s.282(i), rendering service invalid and relief granted to the appellant.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
