COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. RAJESH KUMAR SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MADAN B. Lokur, J. (Oral) 1. The Revenue is aggrieved by an order dated 17th March, 2006 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'F ' in I.T.A. No. 4937/Del/2004 relevant for the Assessment Year 1996-97.

(2.) ACCORDING to the Revenue a notice was sent to the Assessee under Section 147/148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act') on the ground that the Assessing Officer had reason to believe that income of the Assessee had escaped assessment. The case of the Assessee was that he had not received any such notice. The further case of the Assessee was that it was only when he received a notice under Section 142(1) and 143 (2) of the Act that he came to know that a notice had been issued to him under Section 147/148 of the Act. The Assessee mentioned this in his letter but nevertheless filed a return under protest.

(3.) IN so far as the first issue is concerned, there is no dispute that the notice was received by one Lalmani. According to the Assessee Lalmani Shukla is an employee of the Assessee but not Lalmani. Without going into this controversy, and even assuming that Lalmani is an employee of the Assessee, the question is whether receipt of the notice by him is receipt of the notice by the Assessee.