Case LawHigh Court › The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-7 v....

The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-7 v. R.v. Agencies Pvt. Ltd

High Court 22 Nov 2017 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · dhcdb
Parties
The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-7 v. R.v. Agencies Pvt. Ltd
Date of order
22 Nov 2017
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Dismissed

Case summary

In The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-7 v. R.v. Agencies Pvt. Ltd, the High Court (2017) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.

Decision: The appeal is,therefore, dismissed.

Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.

Sections referenced in this judgment

The order — as passed by the High Court

$~1 *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+ITA 1032/2017 THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-7..... AppellantThrough:Mr. Ruchir Bhatia and Mr. GauravKhetrapal, Advs.versus R.V. AGENCIES PVT. LTD. Through: None. ..... Respondent CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHATHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVAO R D E R%22.11.2017 The ground on which the Revenue claims to be aggrieved byfiling an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act is that theTribunal set aside the finding of the lower court with respect to thelegality of the re-assessment proceedings. The assessee had filed its original returns on 26.10.2004; theorder was subsequently framed. The Revenue sought to re-open theassessment,videnoticeissuedon25.03.2011butdispatchedsubsequently. It appears that the notices were sent by speed post tothe assessee at its New Delhi address as well as Punjab (Sangrur)address, where it had shifted in the subsequent years i.e. (2004-05),where it had filed its returns. The notices were returned unserved. TheRevenue thereafter appears to have issued a notice under Section142(1) to the assessee – by this time at his Delhi address and not at Sangrur address. These notices too were not responded as they werenot served. The assessee, after his appeal was unsuccessful,approached ITAT, which after analysing all the circumstances andnoticing that the basic notice under Section 147 and 148 were notserved at all and even with respect to notice under Section 142; thenotice was dispatched only at one address, despite knowledge, that theassessee had subsequently shifted from that address. It ruled thatcompletion of assessment is without authority of law. This Court has considered all the circumstances as appearingfrom the record. It is evident that the re-assessment notice was neverserved; nor was the notice under Section 142 served at a properaddress. No substantial question of law arises. The appeal is,therefore, dismissed. S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J NOVEMBER 22, 2017‘rs’ SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
Facing a similar income-tax issue?
Our CA-led litigation team handles notices, scrutiny, penalties and appeals (CIT(A) & ITAT) end-to-end.
✅ Defend a reassessment (Sec 148) notice → 💬 Ask our CA
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation. Full disclaimer & Terms.
Contact Careers Media / Press · Privacy Terms Refund Cancellation Cookies Disclaimer
© 2026 EaseValue Advisors LLP · LLPIN ACN-4920 · Jaipur, Rajasthan