2022 (4) TMI 1429 - HC - Income Tax

Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - assessee challenges the impugned notice as in view of Section 148A(b seven days time should have been given in the notice for responding the same, while according to the petitioner, in this case, six days time has been given and no opportunity of hearing was given as per the aforesaid provisions - HELD THAT - Since the impugned notice was served through e-mail, so, on the date of e-mail, petitioner has already received the impugned notice and if that date is taken into account, then time to give reply by 23rd March if considered comes to seven days. Apart from these facts on going through the reasoning recorded in the order of rejection of the petitioner s objection to the notice under Section 148A(b) The order under Section 148A(d) of the Act dated 29th March, 2022 does not deserve any interference. Furthermore, rejection of the petitioner s objection to 148A notice does not mean that any final re-assessment order has been passed and demand has been raised. Petitioner will have ample opportunity during the reassessment proceedings to establish his case and to make out a case for dropping of proceeding under Section 148 of the Act. This case also cannot be called a case of violation of principles of natural justice, so far as merit discussed in the rejection order cannot be gone into by this writ court.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to notice under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for assessment year 2018-19 based on time given for response and lack of opportunity of hearing.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged an impugned notice dated 17th March, 2022 issued under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 2018-19. The petitioner contended that the notice did not comply with the requirement of providing seven days for response as mandated by the Act, as only six days were given. Additionally, the petitioner argued that no opportunity of hearing was provided as required by the provisions. The petitioner responded to the notice by submitting a detailed reply, which was considered by the Assessing Officer who issued an order on 29th March, 2022.

The respondent's advocate argued that since the notice was served via email, the date of receipt of the email should be considered, which would make the time given for response comply with the seven-day requirement. The court observed that the rejection of the petitioner's objection to the notice under Section 148A(b) did not imply the passing of a final reassessment order or the raising of a demand. The court emphasized that the petitioner would have ample opportunity during the reassessment proceedings to present their case and request the dropping of the proceedings under Section 148 of the Act. The court concluded that the rejection of the objection did not amount to a violation of the principles of natural justice, as the merits discussed in the rejection order could not be reviewed by the writ court.

In light of the above observations and findings, the court dismissed the writ petition (WPA No.7034 of 2022), indicating that the order under Section 148A(d) of the Act dated 29th March, 2022 did not warrant any interference. The court clarified that the dismissal did not preclude the petitioner from presenting their case during the reassessment proceedings and establishing their arguments for the dropping of the Section 148 proceedings.