2012 (8) TMI 548 - HC - Income Tax

Period of limitation - regular assessment Held that - Return of income was filed on February 24, 2006, and, therefore, notice under section 143(2) was to be served on or before February 28, 2007 - It is not the case of the assessee that an affidavit of Shri Rajeev Goyal has been filed to show that the entries in the order sheet, which is the Government record have been manipulated. There is no evidence to show that Smt. Anita has not accepted the notice on behalf of the firm vakalatnama in the name of Shri Rajeev Goyal and J. N. Goyal it is also available on record - notice has been served within the limitation

Summary

Issues:
1. Service of notice under section 143(2) of the Income-tax Act within the prescribed period of limitation.
2. Assessment made in the capacity of association of persons (AOP) instead of a partnership firm.

Issue 1: Service of Notice under Section 143(2) of the Income-tax Act:
The appeal was filed challenging the assessment order for the assessment year 2005-06, claiming that notice under section 143(2) was not served within the prescribed period. The Assessing Officer issued the notice on February 27, 2007, and subsequent adjournments were granted. The Additional Commissioner of Income-tax found the notice was served on the address provided in the return, rejecting the application to drop the proceedings. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal confirmed that the notice was served within the limitation period. The Tribunal detailed the timeline of notice issuance and receipt by the authorized representative, emphasizing that the notice was duly served. The High Court upheld the Tribunal's findings, concluding that the notice was served within the limitation period, and dismissed the appeal.

Issue 2: Assessment in the Capacity of Association of Persons (AOP):
The appellant contended that the assessment should have been made in the capacity of a partnership firm, not as an association of persons (AOP). The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) noted that the certified copy of the partnership deed required for verification was not filed along with the return. The partnership deed submitted was only certified by one partner, and the original deed was not provided for verification. Consequently, the status of a firm could not be granted, and the assessment as an AOP was deemed appropriate. The High Court agreed with the Commissioner's reasoning, stating that the failure to provide necessary documentation led to the assessment in the capacity of an AOP being valid under the circumstances.

In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the appeal, finding no substantial question of law. The judgment affirmed the service of notice within the prescribed limitation period and upheld the assessment in the capacity of an association of persons based on the lack of proper documentation to establish the status of a partnership firm.