9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 1356X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... deemed service of notice by post. - Notice issued under Section 148 of the Act was validly deemed to be served upon the assessee. - Decided answered against the assessee Notices issued after the expiry of the limitation period - Held that:- Applying the limitation as provided by Clause (b) of unamended Section 149 of the Act as in all the three assessment years, the income chargeable to tax escaping assessment was over ₹ 25,000/- and in one of the years above ₹ 50,000/-, the limitation to give notice under Section 148 of the Act would be a maximum of 7 years and 10 years. Thus, for the assessment year 1992-93, wherein the income chargeable to tax escaping assessment happens to be ₹ 35,052/- and for the assessment year 1993-94, where the income chargeable to tax escaping assessment happens to be ₹ 48,385/-, notice under Section 148 of the Act would have been given within 7 years from the end of the relevant years, which in the above cases would be 31st March, 2000 and 31st March, 2001. Similarly, in respect of the assessment year 1994-95 as the income chargeable to tax escaping assessment happens to be ₹ 55,440/-, the limitation for giving not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct ). The assessee preferred appeals against the aforesaid additions. In the appeals, one of the grounds taken was that the notices were issued after the expiry of the limitation period and were not validly served. The Appellate Authority repelled the above submissions but reduced the additions to the difference between the estimated value and the cost of construction declared by the assessee, which is as under :- F. year Cost declared by assessee Cost estimated by AVO Difference 1992-93 Rs.1,18,231/- Rs.1,53,282/- Rs.35,052/- 1993-94 Rs.1,63,200/- Rs.2,11,585/- Rs.48,385/- 1994-95 Rs.1,87,000/- Rs.2,42,440/- Rs.55,440/- Total :- Rs.4,68,431/- Rs.6,07,308/- Rs.1,38,877/- Still not satisfied, the assessee preferred appeals before the Tribunal. The Tribunal by the impu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cted upon the person named in the notice, i.e. upon the assessee and not upon any other person. In view of the above, the service of notice, if any, upon the minor daughter of the assessee may not be a valid service. Notwithstanding the above service of the notice was also resorted to by speed post. The CIT (Appeals) had called for the report from the Assessing Officer regarding the service of the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act. The Assessing Officer vide his letter dated 14.08.2002 has replied and has stated in this connection, it is submitted that on the perusal of the records, it is noted that the notices under Section 148 of the Act for the assessment years 1992-93, 1993-94 and 1994-95 dated 26.03.2001 issued in the name of the assessee Smt. Gayatri Devi wife of Sri Hari Shankar Mishra, Trans Yamuna Colony, Agra, were sent through speed post on 26.03.2001 vide postal receipt EE000092069 from the Post Office Sanjay Place, Agra,.............. The CIT (Appeals) after examination of the entire material and on consideration of the above report returned a finding that Assessing Officer had sent the notice through speed post, which was not returned by postal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or such assessment year,-- (i) if four years have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year, unless the case falls under sub-clause (ii) or sub-clause (iii) ; (ii) if four years, but not more than seven years, have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year unless the income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment amounts to or is likely to amount to rupees fifty thousand or more for that year ; (iii) if seven years, but not more than ten years, have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year, unless the income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment amounts to or is likely to amount to rupees one lakh or more for that year ; (b) in any other case.-- (i) if four years have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year, unless the case falls under sub-clause (ii) or sub-clause (iii) ; (ii) if four years, but not more than seven years, have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year, unless the income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment amounts to or is likely to amount to rupees twenty-five thousand or more for that year ; (iii) if seven years, but not more than ten years, hav ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... geable to tax escaping assessment happens to be ₹ 48,385/-, notice under Section 148 of the Act would have been given within 7 years from the end of the relevant years, which in the above cases would be 31st March, 2000 and 31st March, 2001. Similarly, in respect of the assessment year 1994-95 as the income chargeable to tax escaping assessment happens to be ₹ 55,440/-, the limitation for giving notice under Section 148 of the Act would be 10 years from the end of the relevant assessment year i.e. 31st March, 2005. Admittedly, the notice under Section 148 of the Act for all the three years was issued on 26.03.2001. Therefore, the notice was beyond time in so far as the assessment year 1992-93 is concerned but it is within limitation for the assessment year 1993-94 and 1994-95. Accordingly, the question no.2 is partly answered in favour of the assessee and it is held that the notice under Section 148 of the Act for the assessment year 1992-93 was barred by time and that for the assessment year 1993-94 and 1994-95 to be within time. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the addition made under Section 69 of the Act for the assessment year 1992-93 i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
