2016 (6) TMI 967

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... nor served such notice before the last date i.e. 31.03.2015. According to the petitioner, the notice was pre-dated, service of notice has not been established. Case of the department is that the notice was, in fact, issued by the Assessing Officer after recording reasons for the same on 31.05.2015. The same was served on the petitioner through hand delivery on the representative of the petitioner, Krishna Yadav available at the office address of the petitioner, who also received the notice by way of abundant caution. Such notice was also served through affixing, on the later part of the same day, by drawing proper panchnama in presence of two panch-witnesses. 2. In this context, counsel for the petitioner drew our attention to the materia....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... recorded by the Assessing Officer. The draft notice, which was duly approved by the higher authority, carries the date 31.03.2015. After initially serving the notice on Krishna Yadav on behalf of the petitioner-company by way of abundant caution under the instruction of the Assessing Officer, the Income Tax Inspector served the notice through affixing in presence of two panchas. In writ petition, the Court should not examine such disputed questions of fact. Counsel contended that the signature of Nimeshkumar Chaudhary on the panchnama produced by the department and on the affidavit filed by the said person which can be taken as his admitted signature, are extremely similar if not identical, giving further credence to the theory of the depa....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... any future complications, the Assessing Officer also directed the Tax Inspector to serve notice to the company in person upon which, the Tax Inspector visited the office of the assesee and found it closed, upon which, the service was made through affixing in presence of two panch witness. We find the original panchnama in the files of the department. It is true that no such observation was made by the Assessing Officer while disposing of the objections of the petitioner, in which, the specific contention of non-service was taken. However, this may be a relevant factor and cannot be the sole factor to decide whether service was actually done as alleged or not. In this context, we have prima facie tried to compare the signatures of Nimeshkum....