S. 143(2) Notice "Issue" vs. “Service”: HC Terms Own Law “Per Incuriam”

---------- Forwarded message ----------

From: editor@itatonline.org <itatonline.org@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 4:31 PM
Subject: Message from EGroup of SolapurCAs S. 143(2) Notice "Issue" vs. "Service": HC Terms Own Law "Per Incuriam"
To: editor@itatonline.org

 

Dear Subscriber,

 

The following important judgement is available for download at itatonline.org.

V.R.A. Cotton Mills (P) Ltd vs. UOI (P&H High Court)

S. 143(2): "Issue" of notice is equivalent to its "service"

 

In respect of AY 2009-10, the assessee filed a ROI on 29.09.2009. The last date for service of the s. 143(2) notice was 30.09.2010. A notice u/s 143 (2) was served by affixation at 11.20 pm on 30.09.2010. The assessee filed a Writ Petition claiming that u/s 282 (1), a notice or requisition had to be served either by post or as if it was a summons issued by a Court under the CPC and that service by affixture was invalid. The assessee relied on CIT vs. AVI-OIL India 323 ITR 242 (P&H) where it was held that a notice u/s 143(2) had not only to be issued, but had to be served before the expiry of 12 months (now 6M) from the end of the month in which the return was furnished. Hotel Blue Moon 321 ITR 362 (SC) was relied upon to contend that in the absence of a s. 143(2) notice, the assessment was invalid. HELD dismissing the Petition:

(Click Here To Read More)

Regards,