Bhupinder Singh Bhatia vs Cgt
2001 Latest Caselaw 279 Del

JUDGMENT

Arijit Pasayat, C.J.

At the instance of assessed, the following question has been referred by the Tribunal, Delhi Bench D under section 26(1) of the Gift Tax Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for opinion of this court :

"Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in upholding the validity of the assessment made under section 15(5)/16(1)(a) of the Gift Tax Act ?"

Dispute relates to the assessment year 1975-76.

2. Factual position in a nutshell is as follows :

2. Factual position in a nutshell is as follows :

assessed is an individual. The assessing officer issued notice under section 16(1) of the Act and according to him notice was served on the assessed on 11-2-1983. As the assessed did not file return within thirty days, the assessing officer continued with the proceedings. In response to the statutory notice, the assessed, along with his advocate, appeared before the assessing officer on two occasions during the month of May, 1986 praying for adjournment, which was granted. On 11-6-1986, a letter was delivered personally to the assessing officer stating that no notice under section 13(2)of the Act was received by the assessed and, therefore, time for assessment had expired. The assessing officer was of the view that though notice under section 13(2) of the Act was not issued, notice under section 16(1) of the Act was served upon the assessed. Accordingly, assessment was completed under section 15(5) read with section 16(1)(a). Matter was carried in appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. Report submitted by the assessing officer was considered by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner with regard to the question regarding service of notice. He came to hold that notice was issued and served upon the assessed. In fact, the assessed had responded to the notice and had attended before the Gift Tax Officer. Matter was carried in further appeal before the Tribunal. Considering the material on record, the Tribunal came to hold that there was valid service of notice. On being moved for reference, the question as set out above has been referred for opinion of this court.

3. We have heard the learned counsel for revenue. There is no appearance on behalf of assessed in spite of notice. The learned counsel for revenue submitted that the question as to whether notice had been properly served is a question of fact giving rise to no question of law.

3. We have heard the learned counsel for revenue. There is no appearance on behalf of assessed in spite of notice. The learned counsel for revenue submitted that the question as to whether notice had been properly served is a question of fact giving rise to no question of law.

4. The Tribunal, with reference to record, has come to a definite finding that notice had been duly served. This finding is essentially of fact. We, therefore, decline to answer the question referred.

4. The Tribunal, with reference to record, has come to a definite finding that notice had been duly served. This finding is essentially of fact. We, therefore, decline to answer the question referred.

The reference is returned unanswered.