9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (2) TMI 155X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... imed that the following substantial questions law would arise for determination of this court: "(i) Whether on the facts and in law, the hon'ble Income Appellate Tribunal was justified in ignoring the fact that, vide order sheet entry dated May 19, 2003, the assessee had duly noted the fact that notice under section 158BD was initially issued by registered post, which was received back and later on the same was served by affixture on July 23, 2001, and service by affixture was not objected to by the assessee at the time of assessment. The hon'ble Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in its order has misquoted the fact that the Assessing Officer noted in paragraph 4.1 of his order the objection of assessee regarding improper service of notice whic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... epare the report sitting in his office. The Tribunal has referred to the report dated July 23, 2001, issued by the process server. According to the report of the Inspector/notice server dated July 23, 2001, the notice was affixed on the main door of shop No. 33, Anajmandi, Mullanpur. There was no evidence of any local person having been associated with in identifying the place of business of the assessee respondent and the report is not witnessed by any person at all. It has been found to be flagrant violation of rule 17 of Order V of the Code which lays down a procedure to serve notice by affixture. The conclusion is recorded in paragraphs 13 and 14 of the order which reads thus: "13. So, however, in the report of the Inspector/notice ser ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Code of Civil Procedure have not been fulifilled and, therefore, in view of the aforesaid discussion and the case law referred to, we are of the view that there has been no valid service of notice issued under section 158BD on the assessee. Since there has been no proper service of notice on the assessee, it has to be held that the impugned assessment proceedings resulting in the order dated June 27, 2003, are bad in law. The same is hereby set aside. The Assessing Officer can issue afresh notice, if so authorized under the law." 3. It is thus obvious that finding with regard to service of notice to confer jurisdiction is absent. 4. The only argument raised by Mr Vivek Sethi, learned counsel for the venue-appellant is that there are sign ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
