Commissioner of Income Tax -10, Mumbai vs Ms. Malvika Arun Somaiya

We have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties. While challenging the order of the Tribunal dated 27-9-2007, it is contended that the Assessee having not filed any fresh returns in response to the notice u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, the Tribunal erred in holding that notice u/s 143(3)(2) ought to have been served upon the assessee before taking any further proceedings and on this basis question of law raised is that the Tribunal has erred in interpreting section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act and has incorrectly come to the conclusion that the order of assessment was in violation of the statutory provisions.

In our view, the findings recorded by the Tribunal do not call for any interference in face of the judgment of this Court in the case of CWT v. HUF of H.H. Late J.M. Scindia [2008] 174 Taxman 1 and the judgment of the Rajasthan Court in the case of Tiwari Kanhaiya Lal Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, . No question of law much less substantial question of law arises for determination. Appeal dismissed. No order as to costs.