Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Narain Dass
2000 Latest Caselaw 1077 Del

JUDGMENT

Arijit Pasayat, C. J.

These three references involve identical questions which have been referred at the instance of the Revenue under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench-A (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal"). The question, pertaining to the assessment years 1967-68 to 1969-70; is as under :

"Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in upholding the Appellate Assistant Commissioner's order annulling the assessments made by the Income Tax Officer under section 147(a) for the assessment years 1967-68 to 1969-70 ?"

We have heard learned counsel for the Revenue. Nobody appeared on behalf of the respondent in spite of service of notice.

In all these references the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the service of notice was not legally done because all the legal heirs of the deceased assessee were not notified and notices proposing to take action under section 147(a) were not given to all of them. The matter stands concluded by the decision of the Apex Court in CIT v. Jai Prakash Singh (1996) 219 ITR 737 (SC), wherein it was held that no fallacy can be attached to the action of serving notice on one of the legal representatives, and that was sufficient compliance as the defect, if any, emanated from irregularity. In the circumstances, we answer the question referred in the negative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.

The Tribunal will do well to remit the matter back to the Income Tax Officer for proceeding afresh after notice to all the legal representatives.