9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Proper service of notice before the Tribunal.
Analysis: The judgment revolves around an application under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution seeking to quash an order passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. The appeal in question was initially filed before the Tribunal against an order by the Income-tax Commissioner. The petitioner's address was furnished in the memorandum of appeal, but a subsequent notice for hearing did not include the complete address. Despite this, the notice was received, and the matter was heard by the Tribunal. Later, a notice for a hearing before a separate Tribunal in Orissa was sent but returned as "refused." The petitioner submitted a petition explaining the refusal, requesting condonation of the mistake. The Tribunal rejected the petition, leading to the writ application to quash the order. The petitioner argued that the notice was not correctly addressed, citing rule 47(1) of the Income-tax Rules. The counter from the department highlighted instances where notices were successfully delivered without the complete address. The court found that the petitioner was aware of the notice being offered to someone in the household, refuting the claim of improper service due to the incomplete address. Ultimately, the court dismissed the writ application, stating there was no reason to grant relief to the petitioner. In conclusion, the judgment delves into the intricacies of proper service of notice before the Tribunal. It analyzes the discrepancies in the address provided by the petitioner and the notice received, emphasizing the petitioner's awareness of the notice being delivered to someone in the household. The court's decision to dismiss the writ application without costs underscores the importance of establishing that despite address discrepancies, the addressee was reachable, thereby validating the service of notice.
|
