2012 (10) TMI 614 - HC - Income Tax

Validity of notice u/s 143 - assessee society was selected by scrutiny under CASS - assessee contested for no notice was ever issued or served on him - Held that - Tribunal has recorded categorical finding that the petitioner was maintaining bank accounts on the address on which notice under Section 143 (2) was sent. He has also shown the same address in his TDS certificates. He did not produce copy of the PAN card inspite of specific queries and demand. The TDS certificate and PAN were generated by computer system. It was found by the Tribunal that the petitioner had himself provided the address on which notice was sent. The notice was sent by speed post through postal authorities. The notice was served strictly in accordance with the procedure for service of notice provided in CPC raising a presumption under General Clause Act, as the envelope, which is duly stamped and sent to the correct address. Thus the service of notice under Section 142 (2) is finding of fact, which has been recorded considering the entire evidence and the relevant provisions of law including Section 282 of the Income Tax Act, which is procedural and will thus be taken to be retrospective in its effect - no substantial question of law arises - against assessee.

Issues:
1. Validity of notice under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Failure to discharge onus and rebut presumption regarding service of notice.
3. Ignoring papers and evidence filed by the Department.
4. Information supplied by the Assessing Officer under the RTI Act.
5. Setting aside the order of the CIT (Appeals) on merits.

Analysis:
1. The judgment concerns an income tax appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, related to the assessment year 2006-07. The appellant, an educational society, was scrutinized under CASS. The Assessing Officer proceeded with the assessment after issuing notices under Sections 143(2) and 142(1). The appellant's income was assessed after deductions, leading to a tax liability on the balance amount.

2. In the first appeal, the CIT (A) found that the notice under Section 143(2) was not served. However, in the second appeal, the Tribunal concluded that the notice was validly issued and served based on evidence that the appellant attended assessment proceedings and the notice was sent to the address provided by the appellant. The Tribunal emphasized the failure to produce the PAN card and obtain information from the Post Office, shifting the onus to the appellant.

3. The appellant raised questions challenging the Tribunal's findings, including the validity of the notice, the failure to discharge the onus, and the Department's evidence. The appellant also questioned the setting aside of the CIT (A)'s order on merits. However, the High Court found that the Tribunal's findings were factual, considering all evidence and relevant legal provisions, such as Section 282 of the Income Tax Act.

4. The High Court dismissed the appeal, emphasizing that the Tribunal's findings on the service of notice were factual and based on a comprehensive evaluation of the evidence. The Court highlighted the procedural aspects and the retrospective effect of Section 282. No other significant points were raised during the appeal, leading to the dismissal of the case.

5. In conclusion, the High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision regarding the service of notice under Section 143(2) and found no substantial questions of law to admit the appeal. The judgment highlights the importance of complying with procedural requirements and the onus of proof in tax matters, ultimately leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

← Previous Next →