IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 
 #88 
 . 
         ITA 925/2010  
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 CIT                                                             ..... 
 Appellant 
 Through       Ms.Suruchi Aggarwal, Adv. 
 . 
 . 
 versus 
 . 
 . 
 SEHGAL INVESTMENTS PVT LTD                         ..... Respondent 
 Through 
 . 
 CORAM: 
 HON?BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE 
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN 
 . 
 O R D E R 
                      19.07.2010 
 . 
 In this appeal preferred under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 
 (for brevity ?the Act?) the revenue has called in question the legal propriety 
 of the order dated 23rd November, 2009 passed by the Tribunal in ITA No. 
 1351/Del/2009 pertaining to the assessment year 2003-2004 
 The singular question that arose before the Tribunal was whether after 
 the case of the assessee/respondent was chosen for scrutiny due notice was 
 issued under Section 143(2) of the Act.  The Tribunal in paragraph 5 has held as 
 follows: - 
 ITA No.925/2010                                                         page 1 
 of 3 
 ?We have heard the rival submissions and have gone through the material 
 available on record.  We find that it is noted by Ld CIT(A) on page No. 2 of the 
 assessment order that carbon copy of one notice u/s 143(2) dated 13.5.2004 is 
 available in the Assessing Officer?s file fixing the matter for 28.5.2004 and 
 two addresses are noted on this notice but there is no evidence of 
 dispatch/service of notice available on record.  It is further noted by the Ld 
 CIT(A) that no postal receipt is available in the assessment record for dispatch 
 of these notices and there is no evidence available showing that these notices 
 have been served on any person.  After considering all the facts and the 
 assessment folder, a clear finding is given by Ld CIT(A) that there is no 
 evidence for service of notice u/s 143(2) is available with the Assessing 
 Officer.  Ld DR of the revenue also could not bring any material on record to 
 show that the notice was served on the assessee.  The finding of Ld CIT(A) 
 regarding non service of notice remains un-controverted.  Facts in the case of 
 Mayawati (supra) are different.  In this case, efforts were made to serve notice 
 at Delhi address and when it was known that the address is changed to Lucknow, 
 notice was sent by Speed Post to Luknow but in the present case, there is no 
 dispatch by Speed Post / Registered. with AD and no service by any other mode 
 within prescribed time.  Hence, this judgment is not applicable in the present 
 case.  Under these facts, we find no reason to interfere in the order of Ld. 
 CIT(A) and hence we uphold the same.? 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 In our considered opinion, the whole case hinges on facts as the Tribunal 
 has categorically recorded a finding that there is no evidence of 
 dispatch/service of notice which is available on record. 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 ITA No.925/2010                                                         page 2 
 of 3 
 Consequently, the appeal being sans merit stands dismissed in limine. 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 CHIEF JUSTICE 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 JULY 19, 2010                                          MANMOHAN, J 
 kapil 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 ITA No.925/2010                                                         page 3 
 of 3 
 .