By K. B. Bhujle, Advocate
New Page 2
II. Reported :
53 Notice : Service by Speed Post : Notice
u/s.143(2) dispatched by Speed Post and not received back is deemed to have been
served in the ordinary course of post within 2/3 days by virtue of presumption
u/s.27 of General Clauses Act, 1897, in the absence of any rebuttal on the side
of the assessee.
[CIT v. Madhsy Films (P) Ltd., 301 ITR 69 (Del.); 216
CTR 145 (Del.)]
Pursuant to the return of income filed by the assessee on
31-10-2001, the Assessing Officer issued notice u/s.143(2) of the Income-tax
Act, 1961, on 23-10-2002 fixing the date of hearing on 29-10-2002 and sent by
Speed Post and completed the assessment after issuing further notices. The
assessee challenged the validity of the assessment order, on the ground that the
notice u/s.143(2) of the Act was not served on the assessee within the
prescribed period. The Tribunal allowed the assessee’s claim and quashed the
assessment order.
On appeal by the Revenue, the Madras High Court reversed the
decision of the Tribunal and held as under :
“(i) In the present case, the notice has been issued on
23-10-2002 and was sent through Speed Post on 25-10-2002 at the address of the
company. S. 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 provides that service by post
is deemed to have been effected by properly addressing, pre-paying and posting
by registered post, a letter containing a notice required to be served. Unless
the contrary is proved, the service is deemed to have been effected at the
time when the letter would be delivered in the ordinary course of post. This
presumption is rebuttable, but in the absence of proof to the contrary, the
presumption of proper service or effective service of notice would arise.
(ii) There is nothing on record to show that the notice
dated 23-10-2002 dispatched on 25-10-2002 by Speed Post was undelivered or
received back. Under the normal circumstances, a presumption will lie that
this notice has reached the assessee within 2/3 days. Since the envelop
containing the notice has not been received back by the Department, there is a
presumption that it has reached the assessee and this presumption has not been
rebutted by the assessee at all. No affidavit has been filed by the assessee
to the effect that the notice was not received by it.
(iii) Under the circumstances, notice u/s.143(2) was served
upon the assessee within the prescribed period and as such the finding given by
the Tribunal that no notice u/s.143(2) has been served upon the assessee within
the prescribed period is hereby set aside and the substantial question of law is
decided in the negative in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.”
