AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The revenue is aggrieved by an order dated 28-4-2006 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench ''B'' in GTA No. 44/Delhi/2003 relevant for the assessment year 1997-98.
The assessed sold his property in July, 1996. On 10-3-2000, a notice was issued to him u/s 16 of the Gift Tax Act in respect of a gift escaping assessment. In response to the notice, the assessed filed a return on 10-4-2000 in which it declared the taxable gift as nil Thereafter, on 8-2-2002, that is, after a lapse of almost two years, a notice was issued to the assessed u/s 15(2) of the Gift Tax Act. Section 15(2) of the Gift Tax Act as well as its proviso read as follows:
Assessment. (1) ** ** **
(2) Where a return has been made u/s 13 or Section 14 or in response to a notice under Clause (i) of Sub-section (4) of this section, the Assessing Officer shall, if he considers it necessary or expedient to ensure that the assessed has not omitted to disclose any taxable gift or has not understated the amount or value of any such gift or has not under-paid the tax in any manner, serve on the assessed a notice requiring him, on a date to be specified therein, either to attend at the office of the assessing officer or to produce, or cause to be produced there, any evidence on which the assessed may rely in support of the return;
Provided that no notice under this sub-section shall be served on the assessed after the expiry of twelve months from the end of the month in which the return is furnished.''
The purpose of the notice u/s 15(2) is to require the assessed to produce evidence that he relies upon in support of the return filed by him. The proviso makes it clear that the notice cannot be served on the assessed after the expiry of twelve months from the end of the month in which the return was filed,
As can be seen from the dates mentioned above, the notice was issued to the assessed more than 12 months after the end of the month in which the return was filed. Clearly, Therefore, the notice was without jurisdiction.
This has been so held by the Commissioner of Gift-tax (Appeals) as well as by the learned Tribunal in the impugned order.
We do not find any reason to take a different view in the matter.
No substantial question of law arises for consideration. Dismissed.