COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX Vs. KANTI DEVI GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this appeal preferred under Section 260a of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the substantial question of law that has been posed by the Revenue for consideration is whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in confirming the Order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) who had held that reassessment was invalid as there had been no personal notice on the assessee under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, though as a matter of fact the notice was served on the husband of the assessee and the assessee had participated in the proceeding before the Assessing Officer ?

(2.) A short resume of facts is necessitous. The respondent-assessee filed the return for the assessment year 1998-99 declaring the income of Rs. 28,850. The Assessing Officer on the basis of the information from the State Bank of Indore at Chhatarpur came to know that there is huge difference in the stock shown by the bank authorities and the stock shown by the assessee. The Assessing Officer reopened the assessment under Section 147 of the Act and issued notices. The husband of the assessee had received the notice. Thereafter, the husband participated in the assessment proceedings and the Assessing officer determined the income component at Rs. 3,33,890. Before the appellate authority it was contended that the Assessing Officer was required to issue notice under Section 148 of the Act to the assessee and receipt of notice by the husband would not sub-serve the purpose. The appellate authority accepted the aforesaid submission and set aside the Order of the Assessing Officer. Being dissatisfied with the Order passed by the appellate authority the Revenue moved the Tribunal and the Tribunal recorded the finding and concurred with the appellate authority.

(3.) MR. Rohit Arya, learned senior counsel for the Revenue, submitted that when the assessee had appeared the emphasis on service on herself is absolutely immaterial as the basic concept behind the provision is for the compliance with the requirement of natural justice. He has commended us to the Division Bench decision rendered in the case of Dr. H. R. Rai v. CIT [1984] 145 ITR 809 (MP ). Similar view has also been taken in the case reported in CIT v. Bhanji Kanji's Shop [1968] 68 ITR 416 (Guj) and Thangam Textiles v. First ITO [1973] 90 ITR 412 (Mad ).