9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (9) TMI 2X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d:- 4-9-2009 - VIKRAMAJIT SEN and RAJIV SHAKDHER, JJ. Mr. N.P. Sahni, Sr. Adv. with Mr. P.C. Yadav, Adv. for the Appellant. Mr. Satyen Sethi with Mr. Johnson Bara, Advs., for the Respondent. JUDGMENT The judgment of the court was delivered by VIKRAMAJIT SEN, J. - This is an Appeal under Section 260 A(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 („IT Act‟ for short) assailing the Order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), New Delhi passed on 4.7.2008 in respect of the Block Assessment period 1.4.1990 to 30.10.2000. Section 158BE(2b) prescribes that the period of limitation for block assessments shall be two years from the end of the month in which the notice under Chapter XIV-B of the IT Act came to be served on the asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ad with Section 158BC was issued on 5.2.2002 and that the Block Return had been filed by the Assessee on 22.3.2002. Beyond this, there is no discussion on the aspect that the Assessment Order was passed within the time prescribed by law. 2. The CIT(A)-III, New Delhi, in the Order dated 14.1.2005, has recorded that "as per the A.O. the notice u/s 158BD dated 24.1.2002 was served upon the appellant on 15.2.2002. Though the appellant submitted that aforesaid notice was served on him on 30.1.2002, however, it could not bring on record any corroborative evidence to justify the same i.e. copy of speed post envelop or receipt showing date of service. Therefore, the ground raised by the appellant remained unsubstantiated and as the notice was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ected within time. In any event, the decision goes against the Department in view of the positive assertion by the Assessee that the Notice admittedly dispatched on 28.1.2002 had been received by the Assessee on 30.1.2002. Poignantly, it had been observed that "it would be fair for the Court to presume that a local letter would reach the asseessee within three days....". Similarly, CIT vs. Vins Overseas India Ltd., [2008] 305 ITR 320 definitively assists the case of the Respondent/Assessee inasmuch as it affirms that if a notice is properly addressed and dispatched through registered post, there is a presumption that it had been served on the assessee. The observation that there was no proper rebuttal of the presumption of valid serv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .2002 was thought by him to be necessary since he had not recorded his satisfaction prior to the issuance of the Notice dated 24.1.2002. Prima facie, this explanation comes in the wake of the Department being put in the corner because of the filing by the Assessee/Respondent of the Notice dated 28.1.2002 and its envelope. It is distressing that the Department should be privy to such shifting stands. 6. We find no error, whatsoever, in the conclusion arrived at by the ITAT in the impugned Order, namely, that since the Order dated 5.2.2004 has been passed beyond the permissible statutory period which expired on 31.1.2004, it is, therefore, legally non est. 7. Appeal is without merit and is dismissed with costs of Rupees 5,000/- to b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
