TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2001 (10) TMI 64
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....landhar, filed a complaint under section 276CC of the Income-tax Act, 1961, against the respondent. The Chief Judicial Magistrate after examination of the evidence has found that "the complainant has utterly failed to prove on file that the notice exhibit P-3 under section 148 of the Income-tax Act was ever served... upon the accused". Thus, the assessee was acquitted of the charge. Aggrieved by t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., 1980. The assessee had filed a return on December 15, 1980. Even in this return he had declared a net loss of Rs.20,930. It is in this situation that it was alleged that there was a delay of seven months in filing the return after the service of the notice under section 148 of the Act. Was the notice actually served as alleged? Mr. Sawhney contends that the findings recorded by the Revenue were....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g on the court. Equally, the provision also does not show that once a penalty is imposed for delay in filing the return, the trial court shall be bound by that order. At best, the orders passed by the authorities under the Act may be evidence. However, the findings cannot be said to be conclusive and binding. That would reduce the trial to a formality. It cannot be so. The factum of service of not....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....use Subash Chander was working as a chartered accountant for the assessee he had the authority to accept notice on behalf of Mukesh Kumar or that service of notice on the accountant shall be deemed to be service on the assessee. If the contention of Mr. Sawhney is accepted, the result can be unfair. The accountant may be negligent. He may not even inform the assessee. Yet, he would be liable. The....