2007 (8) TMI 322

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e said that the defendant (or the assessee in this case) has received the summons or that that service is good service
MADAN B. LOKUR, DR. S. MURALIDHAR JJ. Ms. P. L. Bansal for the appellant. Salil Aggarwal and Prakash Kumar for the respondent. JUDGMENT The judgment of the court was delivered by Madan B. Lokur J.- The Revenue is aggrieved by an order dated March 17, 2006, passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench "F" in I. T. A. No. 4937/Del/2004 relevant to the assessment year 1996-97. 2. According to the Revenue, a notice was sent to the assessee under section 147/148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short "the Act"), on the ground that the Assessing Officer had reason to believe that income of the assessee had es .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the present appeal is concerned. 6. Order V, rule 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that wherever it is practicable, service shall be made on the defendant in person, unless he has an agent empowered to accept service, in which case service on such agent shall be sufficient. Rules 13, 14 and 15 form a part of the same scheme. A joint reading of these rules suggest that if a summon is accepted by a person who is authorised to do so, then only can it be said that the defendant (or the assessee in this case) has received the summons or that that service is good service. 7. In so far as the present appeal is concerned there is nothing to suggest that Lalmani was in any manner authorised to receive any summons on behalf of the assesse .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ed counsel for the Revenue that the envelope did not return with any remark to the effect that it was undelivered and so it must be presumed that it was actually served upon the assessee. 11. We are not in a position to make any such assumption because of the categorical stand of the assessee that he had not received the notice. The burden was entirely upon the Revenue to show that the notice was des-patched to the correct address. It is only then that such a presumption could have been made. But learned counsel for the Revenue has not been able to show that the envelope containing the notice was correctly addressed. We are, therefore, not inclined to accept this contention of learned counsel for the Revenue. 12. It was finally contended .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X