2017 (9) TMI 380 - HC - Income Tax

Validity of notice under Section 158BC - valid service of notice - authorization to issue notice - Held that - The notice under Section 158BC of the Act is said to have been served upon the counsel representing the respondent-assessee. However from the findings as returned by the Tribunal, it is apparent that the counsel upon whom, the said notice is said to have been served, was never authorized or engaged by the respondent-assessee and he had never represented the respondent-assessee even earlier. The Third Member categorically returned a finding that there was no valid service of notice. We do not find any error of law in the findings so returned by the Tribunal. In view of the aforesaid finding when there was no valid service of notice, we are of the opinion that there is no substantial question of law in this connection and the appeal does not even require adjudication on merits.

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of notice under Section 158BC of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Validity of service of the notice under Section 158BC.
3. Merits of the case regarding the Block Assessment period from 01.04.1985 to 09.11.1995.

Validity of Notice under Section 158BC:
The appeal was initially dismissed as time-barred, but upon special leave, the matter was reconsidered due to an amendment in the limitation period. Eight questions of law were formulated, including the legality of the notice issued under Section 158BC. The Tribunal found that the notice was not validly served upon the assessee as the counsel representing the respondent was not authorized or engaged by the respondent-assessee. The Third Member confirmed the lack of valid service of notice, leading to the conclusion that there was no substantial question of law in this regard. Consequently, the Tribunal's decision to quash the Block Assessment was upheld based on the invalid service of notice.

Validity of Service of the Notice under Section 158BC:
The Tribunal and the Third Member confirmed that the notice under Section 158BC was not validly served upon the respondent-assessee, as the counsel who received the notice was not authorized or engaged by the assessee. This lack of valid service led to the conclusion that there was no substantial question of law in this context. As a result, the Tribunal's decision to quash the Block Assessment was deemed justified due to the improper service of the notice.

Merits of the Case Regarding Block Assessment:
The Third Member of the Tribunal addressed three questions, including the merits of the appeal, the validity of the notice under Section 158BC, and the validity of its service. It was found that the notice under Section 158BC was not validly served upon the respondent-assessee, leading to the dismissal of the appeal as lacking in merit. The Tribunal's decision to quash the Block Assessment was upheld based on the improper service of the notice, rendering further adjudication on the merits unnecessary.

In summary, the judgment focused on the validity of the notice under Section 158BC of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the service of such notice. The Tribunal and the Third Member found that the notice was not validly served upon the respondent-assessee, leading to the dismissal of the appeal and the quashing of the Block Assessment. The lack of valid service of notice rendered further consideration of the case's merits unnecessary, resulting in the appeal being dismissed.