9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (12) TMI 1148X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ad to be served upon the assessee within the period of 12 months from the end of the month on the day return has been filed. In the present case service on the authorized representative on 19.10.2006 cannot be treated to be a valid service in the eyes of law. The service has to be upon the assessee which in the present case was served on 2.11.2006. The principle laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and another Vs. Hotel Blue Moon(2010 (2) TMI 1 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) would be fully applicable to the facts of the present case. Therefore, the notice dated 16.10.2006 filed as Annexure-2 to the writ petition which has been served on the petitioner on 2.11.2006 was clearly barred by limitation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e notice issued u/s 143(2) of the Act is barred by limitation as provided by the Proviso to Section 143(2)(ii) of the Act and therefore, the entire proceedings are liable to be quashed. In the counter affidavit filed by Sri Ajai Kumar Dubey, Senior Tax Assistant in the office of the Income Tax, Etawah, in para 5 and 6 of the said affidavit it has been stated that the notice dated 16.10.2006 was dispatched on 18.10.2006 under registered Cover. The postal Department could not serve the notice on 19.10.2006 as the petitioner was not available at the address as mentioned in his return of income. Thereafter the Postal Department approached the petitioner again after three days whereby they were informed that the petitioner had not returned back. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tted that in any view of the matter the notice was served upon Sri Safdar Husain Advocate on 19.10.2006 who was the authorized representative of the petitioner and therefore, the proceedings are within the limitation. In rejoinder, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that notice could not be served upon the authorized representative and it cannot be deemed to be a valid service of notice. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the various pleas raised by the learned counsel for the parties. We find that admittedly the notice for the assessment year 2005-2006 was issued on 16.10.2006 u/s 143(2) of the Act. Though it was issued on 16.10.2006 it was served upon the petitioner on 2.11.2006. The proviso to Section 143(2)(ii ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
