9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (9) TMI 1041 - HC - Income TaxRevision u/s 263 - validity of notice - notice issued on wrong address - Held that - Held that - The notice having been given initially at the wrong address and thereafter posted to the correct address just two days prior to the said hearing and the said notice also having been returned unserved due to the reasons which are not decipherable, the requirement under Section 263 (1) of the Act is not satisfied. In Chandra Agencies (2010 (10) TMI 849 - Delhi High Court ) this Court has gone to the extent of holding that refusal by the Assessee s son to receive the notice under Section 148 of the Act does not constitute good service. This Court has also examined the question as to whether an opportunity of hearing could now be afforded to the Appellant. However, Section 263 (2) of the Act is a clear bar for any order being passed pursuant to a notice under Section 263 of the Act, after the expiry of two years from the end of the financial year in which the order sought to be revised was passed. Thus, there is an outer limit in the statute under Section 263 which, in the present case, is 31st March, 2013. Since, no useful purpose will be served in giving an opportunity to the Appellant of being heard at this stage, this Court answers question No.1 in the negative i.e. in favour of the Assessee and against the Revenue.
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the notice dated 18th March 2013 issued by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata to the Assessee satisfied the requirements of Section 263(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 regarding providing the Assessee an opportunity of being heard. 2. If the answer to the first issue is affirmative, whether the order dated 30th March 2013 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 263 of the Act is sustainable in law. Detailed Analysis: 1. Compliance with Section 263(1) - Opportunity of Being Heard: The primary issue is whether the Assessee was given a proper opportunity to be heard as required under Section 263(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessee argued that the notice under Section 263 was sent to an outdated address (Raja Woodmunt Street), despite the Assessee having shifted its registered office multiple times and duly informing the authorities. The Respondent contended that the notice was re-posted to the correct Delhi address on 20th March 2013 after the initial attempt failed, but it was also returned unserved. The court emphasized that the law requires a "full opportunity" to be given to the Assessee to contest the notice under Section 263. The notice was initially sent to an address that was outdated by at least three years, and the subsequent re-posting to the correct address occurred just two days before the scheduled hearing. The court found that this did not constitute adequate opportunity, as the Assessee could not reasonably be expected to attend a hearing in Kolkata on such short notice. The court concluded that the process was hurried and did not satisfy the requirements of Section 263(1), thus answering the first issue in the negative. 2. Sustainability of the Order Dated 30th March 2013: Given that the first issue was answered in the negative, the second issue regarding the merits of the order dated 30th March 2013 did not survive for consideration. The court noted that Section 263(2) imposes a statutory bar on passing any order under Section 263 after the expiry of two years from the end of the financial year in which the order sought to be revised was passed. Since the outer limit in this case was 31st March 2013, and the notice and order were set aside, no useful purpose would be served in reconsidering the opportunity of hearing at this stage. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and both the notice dated 18th March 2013 and the order dated 30th March 2013 were set aside. Conclusion: The court held that the notice under Section 263 did not meet the statutory requirement of providing a full opportunity to the Assessee to be heard, and thus the subsequent order passed under Section 263 was unsustainable. The appeal was allowed in favor of the Assessee, and the impugned notice and order were set aside.
|
