<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2015 (10) TMI 323 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=265048</link>
    <description>Assessment under the Income-tax Act was unsustainable where notice under Section 143(2) was not duly served and the Assessing Officer did not use the available substituted service modes. Inconsistent reports from the notice-server and Inspector did not cure the defect, and affixture at the former address was insufficient once the department knew the assessee had left the premises. Section 282 and the applicable service procedure required recourse to prescribed alternate methods, such as newspaper publication, when ordinary service failed. Because the proper substituted mode was not adopted, the defect in service remained material and the revenue&#039;s challenge failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 08 Sep 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 06 Oct 2015 08:49:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=400097" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (10) TMI 323 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=265048</link>
      <description>Assessment under the Income-tax Act was unsustainable where notice under Section 143(2) was not duly served and the Assessing Officer did not use the available substituted service modes. Inconsistent reports from the notice-server and Inspector did not cure the defect, and affixture at the former address was insufficient once the department knew the assessee had left the premises. Section 282 and the applicable service procedure required recourse to prescribed alternate methods, such as newspaper publication, when ordinary service failed. Because the proper substituted mode was not adopted, the defect in service remained material and the revenue&#039;s challenge failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 08 Sep 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=265048</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>