1 IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 2262 OF 2018 [ARISING OUT OF SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO.9174 OF 2015 INCOME TAX OFFICER, ETAWAH APPELLANT(S) VERSUS DHARAM NARAIN RESPONDENT(S) ORDER 1. Leave granted. 2. By impugned order, High Court has quashed notice dated 16th October, 2006 issued under Section 143(2) of Indian Tax Act, 1961 to respondent Assessee by allowing writ petition filed by said Assessee. Aggrieved, Revenue is in appeal before this Court. 3. Admittedly, under provisions of Section 143(2) of Income Tax Act, 1961 Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by VINOD LAKHINA (as then in force) notice has to be Date: 2018.02.20 16:24:33 IST Reason: 2 served on respondent Assessee latest by 30th October, 2006. In present case, notice was issued on 16th October, 2006 which was dispatched on 18th October, 2006 by registered post. materials on record indicate that on two occasions notice sent by registered post could not be served on respondent Assessee as he was not available and that it was served on authorized representative of respondent Assessee on 19th October, 2006. question, therefore, that arises in writ petition was whether in such circumstances requirement under Section 143(2) of Income Tax Act, 1961 was met by Revenue. High Court answered question in negative taking view that what is required to be satisfied by Revenue is service of notice and not mere issuance thereof. 3 4. It will not be necessary for us to decide aforesaid question in present case which is being kept open for decision in appropriate case. We have taken aforesaid view as present case is capable of being resolved on its own peculiar facts. 5. non-availability of respondent Assessee to receive notice sent by registered post as many as on two occasions and service of notice on 19th October, 2006 on authorized representative of respondent Assessee whom respondent Assessee now disowns, in our considered view, is sufficient to draw inference of deemed service of notice on respondent Assessee and sufficient compliance of requirement of Section 143(2) of Income Tax Act, 1961. 4 6. On aforesaid view that we have taken we are of opinion that High Court was not right in coming to impugned conclusion in facts of instant matter. We, accordingly, allow this appeal and set aside order of High Court. ,J. (RANJAN GOGOI) J. (R. BANUMATHI) NEW DELHI FEBRUARY 19, 2018 5 ITEM NO.46 COURT NO.3 SECTION IV-B SUPREME COURT OF INDIA RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS PETITION(S) FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (C) NO(S). 9174/2015 (ARISING OUT OF IMPUGNED FINAL JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 05-12-2012 IN WP NO. 642/2007 PASSED BY HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD) INCOME TAX OFFICER, ETAWAH PETITIONER(S) VERSUS DHARAM NARAIN RESPONDENT(S) (AND IA NO.18177/2018-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. AND IA NO.24513/2018-I/A FOR FILING CORRECTED VERSION OF COUNTER AFF. AND IA NO.24758/2018-I/A FOR FILING CORRECTED VERSION OF COUNTER AFF. AND IA NO.24761/2018-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.) Date : 19-02-2018 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE R. BANUMATHI For Petitioner(s) Mr. K. Radhakrishnan, Sr. Adv. Ms. Rekha Pandey, Adv. Mr. Sarad Kumar Singhania, Adv. Ms. Gargi Khanna, Adv. Mrs. Anil Katiyar, AOR For Respondent(s) Mr. Imtiaz Ahmed, Adv. Mrs. Naghma Imtiaz, Adv. Mr. Ahmed Zargham, Adv. Ms. Amra Moosavi, Adv. for M/S. Equity Lex Associates, AOR UPON hearing counsel Court made following ORDER Leave granted. 6 appeal is allowed in terms of signed order. Consequently, all pending applications are also disposed of. [VINOD LAKHINA] [ASHA SONI] AR-cum-PS BRANCH OFFICER [SIGNED ORDER IS PLACED ON FILE] Income-tax Officer, Etawah v. Dharam Narain