2013 (9) TMI 734

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....143 (2) of the Act, was served on the assessee 12 months after the end of the month in which the return was furnished, the impugned notice is null and void. It is further argued that the petitioner filed its return, for the assessment year 1991-92, on 31.10.1991. The return was picked up for scrutiny by serving a notice dated 17.8.1993 under section 143 (2) of the Act. The petitioner preferred objections by averring that notice was not served within 12 months from the end of the month in which return was furnished. The Assessing Officer forwarded a communication falsely averring that an earlier notice dated 22.5.1992, issued under section 143 (2) of the Act, had already been dispatched to the petitioner, within the period prescribed by the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rded to the assessee by appending a photo copy of notice issued on 22.5.1992. Thus, as notice, under section 143 (2) of the Act, issued on 22.5.1992, duly evidenced by an entry in the dispatch register, was never received back, it was presumed to have been served upon the assessee within twelve months. The petitioner's contention that the assessee was not served with notices under section 143 (2) of the Act, for assessment years 1990-91 and 1991-92, is factually incorrect. We have heard counsel for the parties, perused the impugned notice and the impugned orders. The dispute, in the present case, revolves around the issuance and service of notices issued under Section 143(2) of the Act for assessment years 1990-91 and 1991-92. There is no....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....y issued and served." The averments in the reply, duly supported by copies of the notices, dispatched vide dispatch no.177 and the fact that notices were not received back raise a presumption of service under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897. The onus to rebut the presumption of service of notice sent by post, lies upon the petitioner. The petitioner has failed to discharge this onus. The bald denial by the petitioner that notice was never received, in our considered opinion, is insufficient, to record a finding in favour of the petitioner. We, therefore, find no reason to accept the petitioner's averments and submissions that notice dated 22.5.1992 was not served upon the petitioner, within the period of 12 months prescribed by....