Menu
Courtroom: | |
CORAM: | |
Part(S): | |
Style: | |
Capture Terms: | |
Advice: | |
DATE: | (Time of pronouncement) |
Day: | Come july 1st 26, 2011 (Day of distribution) |
AY: | |
FILE: | |
CITATION: |
View HIREN CHAVDA’S profile on LinkedIn, the world's largest professional community. HIREN has 1 job listed on their profile. See the complete profile on LinkedIn and discover HIREN’S connections and jobs at similar companies.
Click on right here to download the judgement (kanubhaipatel148noticedespatch.pdf) |
To choose whether s i9000. 148 notice is certainly “issued” in time, date of handing over by AO to blog post office to end up being observed
In respect of AY 2003-04, the AOreleased a see u/s 148 out dated 31.3.2010. However, the see was given by the AO to thepost office for dispatch to the assessee on 7.4.2010and it was delivered to the assessee on 8.4.2010. The assessee submitted a Writ Petition contending thatthough the see was went out with 31.3.2010, it has been not “issued” till it had been shipped to the write-up workplace on 7.4.2010 by which time the limitation time period of 6 years from the finish of the assessment year recommended in beds. 149 got ended. HELD maintaining the plea:
For purposes of t. 149, the phrase“see shall end up being released” means that the see should move out of the fingers of the AO. On specifics, though the see was signed on 31.3.2010, it was sent to the acceleration post middle for reservation just on 7.4.2010. Contemplating the description of the term “concern”,simply signing the updates on 31.3.2010 cannot end up being equated with “issuance of notice” as considered u/beds 149. The date of issue would become the day on which the same was handed over for service to the correct expert, which in the present situation would be the date on which the updates was really handed down over to the blog post office for the purpose of reserving for the purpose of effecting program on the assessee.Till the point of period the envelopes are properly stamped with adequate worth of postal stamps, it cannot become stated that the procedure of concern is full. As the see was delivered for booking to the Speed Post Middle on 7.4.2010,the day of “issue” of the see would end up being 7.4.2010 and not really 31.3.2010, which will be beyond the constraint period. As a result, the reassessment cannot be sustained.
Observe alsoBachhitar Singh vs. State of PunjabA 1963 SC 395,Condition of Punjab vs. Amar SinghA 1966 SC 1313,CIT vs. Asian Rubber Functions145 ITR 477 (SC) amp;Petlad Bulakhidas Generators vs. Raj Singh37 ITR 264 (Bom) where it was held that an order is not really effective until disseminated. Contrast withSanjay Kumar Garg vs. ACIT(ITAT Delhi)