COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. INDERPAL MALHOTRA
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) 416/Del/1996 relevant for the asst. yr. 1992 -93. 2. The only issue that arises in this case is whether notice under s. 143(2) was served on the assessee within the period of limitation.
registered post, which was the last date of limitation. There is no way that the notice could have been received by the
assessee on the same day unless the notice was sent by hand, which is not so in the present case.
(2.) In CIT vs. Vardhman Estate (P) Ltd. (2007) 208 CTR (Del) 251 : (2006) 287 ITR 368 (Del), a notice was sent by the Revenue in that case was that the notice sent should be deemed to have been served on the assessee. This
argument was rejected by this Court and it was made clear that what is required by the statute is not merely the
despatch or issuance of the notice but its actual service.
(3.) Since in the present case it is admitted that as a matter of fact, notice was issued by registered post on the last day of the period of limitation and by no other method, there was no possibility of it being served in time. No substantial
question of law arises.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.