Where revenue dispatched notice under section 143(2), and the fact that notice was not received back raise a presumption of service under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897
Facts:
a) Notice under section 143(2) was claimed to have been issued by revenue under section 143(2);
b) The assessee raised an objection that notice was not served within 12 months from end of month in which return was furnished and, thus, it was null and void;
c) Despite this objection, revenue proceeded to finalized assessment. Thus, the dispute, in the present case, revolves around the issuance and service of notices issued under Section 143(2) of the Act.
The High Court held as under:
1) The averments in the reply, duly supported by copy of the notice and the fact that notice was not received back raised a presumption of service under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897;
2) The onus to rebut the presumption of service of notice sent by post, lies upon the petitioner;
3) The petitioner has failed to discharge this onus. Mere denial by the petitioner that notice was never received, was insufficient, to record a finding in favour of the petitioner;
4) Thus, the instant petition was dismissed as there was no error in the impugned order or proceeding - Shahbad Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Dy.CIT [2013] 38 taxmann.com 204 (Punjab & Haryana)
Facts:
a) Notice under section 143(2) was claimed to have been issued by revenue under section 143(2);
b) The assessee raised an objection that notice was not served within 12 months from end of month in which return was furnished and, thus, it was null and void;
c) Despite this objection, revenue proceeded to finalized assessment. Thus, the dispute, in the present case, revolves around the issuance and service of notices issued under Section 143(2) of the Act.
The High Court held as under:
1) The averments in the reply, duly supported by copy of the notice and the fact that notice was not received back raised a presumption of service under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897;
2) The onus to rebut the presumption of service of notice sent by post, lies upon the petitioner;
3) The petitioner has failed to discharge this onus. Mere denial by the petitioner that notice was never received, was insufficient, to record a finding in favour of the petitioner;
4) Thus, the instant petition was dismissed as there was no error in the impugned order or proceeding - Shahbad Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Dy.CIT [2013] 38 taxmann.com 204 (Punjab & Haryana)
No comments:
Post a Comment