SHEO MURTI SINGH Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a Doctor by profession. For the assessment year 2008-09 the petitioner filed his return of income on 27.3.2009 declaring his net income as Rs.1,20,036/-. The petitioner contends that he received a notice dated 21.5.2015 issued under Section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") through which the petitioner came to known that proceeding under Section 148 of the Act had been initiated for reassessment of the income for the assessment year 2008-09. In response to the said notice, the petitioner filed an application praying that a certified copy of the inspector's report and a certified copy of the order sheet be given to enable the petitioner to proceed forward. The Income Tax officer vide its letter dated 10.7.2015 informed the petitioner that the petitioner should first comply with the notice under Section 142(1) of the Act and thereafter the details, as per his letter, would be provided. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the action of the respondent and initiation of the reassessment proceeding, has filed the present writ petition.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that for initiation of the proceedings under Section 148 of the Act, the essential requirement is, that a notice under Section 148 of the Act should have been served, which in the instant case has not been done till date and, consequently, the entire proceedings stood vitiated as no valid service of notice under Section 148 of the Act had yet been served upon the petitioner. The petitioner contends that the notice dated 25.3.2015 was issued under Section 148 of the Act, which came back unserved on 30.3.2015 and that the said notice was never served though it is alleged that service was made by the Department not at his residence, but at his clinic.

(3.) A notice dated 25.3.2015, under Section 148 of the Act, was sent by Speed Post at the residential address of the petitioner, which admittedly came back unserved. The record indicates that the Income Tax Officer deputed two Inspectors to make personal service of the said notice upon the petitioner. The Inspectors' report indicates that they went to serve the notice at the residence of the petitioner and found that the petitioner had gone to his clinic. The Inspector thereafter, accordingly, went to the clinic where the petitioner was busy in his chamber, examining his patients. A request was sent by the Inspectors to meet the petitioner. The report indicates that the Inspectors waited at the clinic for almost half an hour, and thereafter, the petitioner came out and, at that stage, the notice was served which he refused on the ground, that he has no time to receive the notice as he has to go out on an emergency call. The report further indicates that the Inspectors tried to serve the notice upon the other members of the staff who all refused and, accordingly, the notice was thereafter affixed at the main door of the clinic. The fact of return of service and thereafter deputing the Inspector are also recorded on the order sheet. We also find that thereafter a notice under Section 142(1) of the Act was issued to the petitioner on 21.5.2015.