Income Tax Officer v On Exim Pvt Ltd,
Reassessment — Period of limitation for issue of notice u/s 148 — Assessee challenged validity of notice contending that same was barred by time as it was handed over to postal authorities after six years from end of AY — Assessee further contended that notice was issued with wrong address — Held, AY 2001–2002 was under consideration and six years from relevant AY ended on 31 March 2008 — Notices u/s 148 were
signed on 31 March 2008 but handed over on 1 April 2008 — Revenue admitted that notice u/s 148 was issued at address given in communication from Investigation Wing — In case of Kanubhai M Patel (HUF) v Hiren Bhatt or His Successors to Office and Others (2011) 334 ITR 25 (Guj) it was held that expression "to issue" in context of issuance of notices, writs and process, has been attributed meaning, to send out; to place in hands of proper officer for service — Date of issue would be date on which same were handed over for service to proper officer, which in facts would be date on which said notices were actually handed over to post office for purpose of booking for purpose of effecting service on assessee — Till point of time envelopes are properly stamped with adequate value of postal stamps, it cannot be stated that process of issue is complete — From above, it was evident that date of issue would be date on which notice u/s 148 was handed over for service to proper officer which, in facts of present case, were postal authorities — In case of assessee, notice was handed over to postal authorities on 1 April 2008 which was beyond period of limitation of six years provided in s 149 — Moreover, notice was not correctly addressed — Notice had to be sent at address of assessee given in its record with Income-tax Department — Therefore, notice was invalid.
Reassessment — Period of limitation for issue of notice u/s 148 — Assessee challenged validity of notice contending that same was barred by time as it was handed over to postal authorities after six years from end of AY — Assessee further contended that notice was issued with wrong address — Held, AY 2001–2002 was under consideration and six years from relevant AY ended on 31 March 2008 — Notices u/s 148 were
signed on 31 March 2008 but handed over on 1 April 2008 — Revenue admitted that notice u/s 148 was issued at address given in communication from Investigation Wing — In case of Kanubhai M Patel (HUF) v Hiren Bhatt or His Successors to Office and Others (2011) 334 ITR 25 (Guj) it was held that expression "to issue" in context of issuance of notices, writs and process, has been attributed meaning, to send out; to place in hands of proper officer for service — Date of issue would be date on which same were handed over for service to proper officer, which in facts would be date on which said notices were actually handed over to post office for purpose of booking for purpose of effecting service on assessee — Till point of time envelopes are properly stamped with adequate value of postal stamps, it cannot be stated that process of issue is complete — From above, it was evident that date of issue would be date on which notice u/s 148 was handed over for service to proper officer which, in facts of present case, were postal authorities — In case of assessee, notice was handed over to postal authorities on 1 April 2008 which was beyond period of limitation of six years provided in s 149 — Moreover, notice was not correctly addressed — Notice had to be sent at address of assessee given in its record with Income-tax Department — Therefore, notice was invalid.
No comments:
Post a Comment