Case Law Details
PCIT Vs Narayan Kumar Khaitan (Orissa High Court)
Case Law on Service of notice required through Superintendent of Jail if assessee is in judicial custody.
A search and seizure operation under section 132 was conducted on SM and group wherein certain incriminating documents were found. Subsequently, assessment in case of assessee was completed under section 153C read with section 143(3). Principal Commissioner invoked revisionary jurisdiction under section 263 against said assessment order and subsequently, issued a notice for being served upon assessee at his last known address. In reply, a staff member of assessee appeared and informed that assessee was in judicial custody. Principal Commissioner treated appearance of staff member as sufficient in terms of section 292BB and passed order under section 263. Tribunal by impugned order held that assessee who was in judicial custody was deprived of many of constitutional rights which he could otherwise exercise. Any officer of Government including Pr. Commissioner should be conscious that once information was received that a person to whom notice was issued was in judicial custody, then an appropriate order should be passed requiring service of notice on such person through superintendent of concerned jail. Since Pr. Commissioner failed to serve notice to assessee through Superintendent of Jail, it was not open to department to contend mere appearance of staff of assessee in judicial custody before Pr. Commissioner should to be taken as appearance by noticee/assessee himself. Therefore, service of notice by speed post on last-known address did not amount to be a valid service as per provisions of Act and, thus, impugned order passed under section 263 was liable to be quashed. [In favour of assessee] (Related Assessment year : 2010-11) – [PCIT (Central) v. Narayan Kumar Khaitan (2023) (Orissa)]
Whether service of notice by Speed Post on the last-known address amounts to valid service as per the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act).
This Court concurs with the observation of the ITAT in the impugned order that a person in judicial custody is deprived of many of the constitutional rights which he could otherwise exercise. Any officer of the Government including a PCIT should be conscious that once information was received that a person to whom notice has to be served is in judicial custody, then an appropriate order should be passed requiring service of notice on such person through the Superintendent of the concerned jail. This is the bare minimum requirement in law. With the PCIT having failed to do so, it was not open to the Department to contend the mere appearance of a staff of such person in judicial custody before the PCIT should be taken to be the appearance by the Noticee/Assessee himself.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
