High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh
Case Law Search
Commissioner of Income Tax-II, Chandigar v. Jagdish Chawla, Proprietor, M/s Sai Baba - ITA-154-2005  RD-P&H 829 (24 January 2007)
I.T.A. No.154 of 2005
Date of Decision: 29.1.2007
Commissioner of Income Tax-II, Chandigarh. ...Petitioner.
Jagdish Chawla, Proprietor, M/s Sai Baba Fruit Co. ...Respondent.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.KUMAR
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL
Present: Mr.S.K.Garg Narwana, Advocate
for the revenue.
M.M.KUMAR, J. (ORAL)
Despite issuance of notices on 24.1.2006, 4.7.2006, 25.9.2006, 26.10.2006 and 28.11.2006, service has not been effected. It is appropriate to mention that the notices were issued dasti.
On the last date of hearing, the office has reported that notice issued to the respondent was received back unserved with the report that he was not residing at the given address and has left the place two years ago.
Accordingly, fresh address was required to be furnished by learned counsel for the revenue which has not been done. According to office report, notice for want of correct address has not been issued to the respondent. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution.
January 29, 2007 (RAJESH BINDAL)
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.