2023 (2) TMI 1135 - HC - Income Tax

Validity of Reopening of assessment - shorter period to the petitioner to submit a response as less than the mandatory period, i.e., seven days - minimum statutory timeframe, as indicated in clause (b) of Section 148A - HELD THAT - Revenue, has indicated, albeit, across the bar, that the notice dated 10.03.2022, issued u/s 148A(b) of the Act, would have been uploaded on the designated portal, and therefore, the reliance on the email dated 12.03.2022 by the petitioner/assessee will not help its cause. We have queried Respondents as to whether a real-time alert was sent to the petitioner via SMS. Respondents says that he will ascertain as to whether or not the notice was, firstly, uploaded on the designated portal and also whether a real-time alert was sent to the petitioner via SMS. Petitioner has conceded that there is no assertion, even in the writ petition or in the reply to the notice dated 10.03.2022, that the petitioner/assessee did not receive a real-time alert via SMS. Said, the impediment which is in the way of the respondent/revenue is as to whether the expression not being less than seven days appearing in clause (b) of Section 148A of the Act should be interpreted in the manner in which Petitioner has put forth before us. Petitioner also points out that the digital signatures were appended on the notice, issued under Section 148A(b) of the Act, only on 11.03.2022 i.e., on Friday. Although the date is not visible, since there is a reference to the day, it can be concluded that the date, as per the calendar would be 11.03.2022.

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of the time period granted to file a reply under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Validity of the notice served to the petitioner for Assessment Year 2018-19.
3. Requirement of real-time alerts via SMS for serving notices.
4. Interpretation of the expression "not less than seven days" in Section 148A(b) of the Act.
5. Digital signature on the notice issued under Section 148A(b) of the Act.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner contended that the period given for filing a reply under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act was less than the mandatory seven days. The notice dated 10.03.2022 required a response by 17.03.2022, which, according to the petitioner, did not comply with the statutory requirement.

2. The petitioner relied on the Supreme Court judgment in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Braithwaite & Co. Ltd (1993) to support their argument regarding the interpretation of the expression "not less than seven days." The judgment emphasized that the period should extend beyond seven years to meet the statutory requirement.

3. The respondent indicated that the notice would have been uploaded on the designated portal and questioned the reliance on the email dated 12.03.2022 by the petitioner. The court inquired about the provision of real-time alerts via SMS for serving notices.

4. The court deliberated on whether the expression "not being less than seven days" in Section 148A(b) should be interpreted as argued by the petitioner. The petitioner also highlighted the digital signatures appended to the notice on 11.03.2022, emphasizing the timeline of events.

5. The court directed the respondent to provide clarification on the uploading of the notice on the portal and the provision of real-time alerts via SMS. The matter was scheduled for further hearing on 14.02.2023, with both parties duly represented by their respective counsels.