2009 (9) TMI 2

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ction 158BE(2b) prescribes that the period of limitation for block assessments shall be two years from the end of the month in which the notice under Chapter XIV-B of the IT Act came to be served on the assessee concerned. The ITAT has found that "admittedly" the notice under Section 158BD dated 24.1.2002 was dispatched to the assessee on 28.1.2002 as per the postal receipt. The ITAT has further returned a finding of fact that this notice was served upon the assessee on 30.1.2002. The Block Assessment Order came to be passed on 5.2.2004 and ,therefore, lacked jurisdiction inasmuch as the last date on which it could have been passed was 31.1.2004. The Assessment Order records the address of the Respondent/Addressee as C-4/127, S.D. Area, New....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... corroborative evidence to justify the same i.e. copy of speed post envelop or receipt showing date of service. Therefore, the ground raised by the appellant remained unsubstantiated and as the notice was served on 15.2.2002, the limitation for completion of block assessment proceedings comes to February, 2004". 3. It was in this factual background that learned counsel for the Respondent has placed on record the Notice dated 24.1.2002 with the envelope thereof, as well as Notice dated 15.2.2002 with its envelope, together with Memorandum of Appeal in Form-35 filed before the CIT(Appeals), which categorically makes a mention of the Notice dated 24.1.2002. On a scrutiny of the Notice dated 24.1.2002, as well as the envelope, we are unable ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ressed and dispatched through registered post, there is a presumption that it had been served on the assessee. The observation that there was no proper rebuttal of the presumption of valid service of notice militates against the case now set-out on behalf of the Department. 5. There is a disturbing feature of the case which we need to comment upon. Till the production of the Notice dated 24.1.2002 as well as the envelope in which it was contained, the Department had adhered to the position that no such notice had been issued. We had made a comparison of the signatures on the photocopy of the Notice dated 24.1.2002 with those obtaining in other documents and had come to the prima facie conclusion that contrary to what the Department would....