IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 
 . 
  25.10.2010 
.
 Present:       Dr. Rakesh Gupta with Ms. Rani Kiyala and Mr. Johnson Bara, Advs. 
 for the appellant. 
 Mr. N.P. Sahini, Adv. for the respondent. 
.
 +ITA No.1665/2010 
.
 The only issue which is raised in this appeal is that the 
 appellant was not served with notice under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act 
 and therefore, the assessment proceedings are bad in law.  In this behalf, we 
 may record that such an issue is not even raised before the Assessing Officer 
 when the assessee was purportedly in the proceedings before him.  However, CIT 
 (A) as well as Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has recorded consistent findings of 
 fact that the notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was presumed to have been 
 received by the appellant-assessee.  We may quote the following observations of 
 the ITAT, which reads as under: 
 ?16.       With regard to ground taken by the assessee for annulling the 
 assessment on the plea of non-service of notice u/s 143(2), we found that during 
 the course of appellate proceedings the CIT(A) has called for the remand report 
 wherein it is found that a notice u/s 143(2) was sent by registered post at the 
 correct address i.e. the same at which a refund has also been sent and was duly 
 encashed.  The assessee did not raise any grievance before the A.O. during the 
 assessee proceedings, therefore, the AO did not call for any report from the 
 post office.  The CIT (A) observed that by not asking the AO regarding non- 
 service of notice the assessee deprived the AO from making the relevant 
 enquiries from the post office in time, and since the post office rules follow a 
 time limit policy of six months only for providing such information, the delay 
 on the part of the assessee has come in the way of the A.O.  We found that after 
 filing the return on 3.10.2002, the AO issued notice u/s 143(2) dated 
 10.10.2003.  As per relevant provisions as applicable for AY 2002-03 under 
 consideration, the AO may issue and serve notice upto 31.10.2003.  Nothing was 
 brought on record by the assessee to show that notice issued on 10.10.2003 was 
 served after 31.10.2003, accordingly there is no infirmity in the order of CIT 
.
.
 (A) for upholding the service of mandatory notice u/s 143(2) of the Act within 
 the statutory time limit.  Accordingly we do not find any reason to interfere in 
 their orders holding that there was valid service of notice within the statutory 
 time limit. ? 
.
 Therefore, we are of the opinion that no substantial question of 
 law arises for determination.  This appeal is accordingly dismissed. 
.
 A.K. SIKRI, J. 
.
 SURESH KAIT, J. 
 OCTOBER 25, 2010 
 pmc 
.
.
 #68