2018 (3) TMI 1468 - HC - Income Tax

Reopening of assessment - notice was not issued within the time limit - Held that - Permanent Account Numbers issued. The notices were dispatched at the address which was available in the system of the department. The petitioner had never applied for change of address and, therefore, the department was obviously not aware about it. These are disputed questions of facts. Whether the system of the department contains the petitioner s old address as declared by him earlier and, therefore, the department was correct in sending the notice to such address would need proper examination. The petitioner s contention that without the change of the address, the system would not accept the petitioner s returns declaring new address also cannot be brushed aside. These are issues we are not inclined to go in a writ petition. These issues need to be gone into in the departmental proceedings in regular assessments. The authorities would have sufficient time and opportunity to examine such disputed questions.

Summary

Issues involved: Challenge to notice of reopening of assessment for the assessment year 2010-2011 based on time limit for issuance of notice and address discrepancy.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged the notice of reopening of assessment for the assessment year 2010-2011, contending that the notice was not issued within the statutory time limit. The petitioner had not filed a return of income for that year. The main ground of challenge was that the notice was dispatched to a wrong address and was not received by the petitioner. The petitioner had changed the address and filed returns from the new address for many years. The department, however, claimed that the notice was dispatched to the address declared by the petitioner, which was available in the department's system as per the Permanent Account Number records. The petitioner had not applied for a change of address, so the department was unaware of the new address.

The court noted that these were disputed questions of facts. Whether the department's system contained the old address declared by the petitioner and whether sending the notice to that address was correct needed further examination. The petitioner's argument that without changing the address, the system would not accept returns with a new address also raised valid concerns. The court declined to delve into these issues in a writ petition, stating that they should be addressed in regular assessments by the authorities who would have sufficient time and opportunity to examine such disputed questions.

In the final disposition, the court clarified that all contentions of the petitioner regarding the validity of the notice were kept open. It was emphasized that the Assessing Officer's disposal of the petitioner's objection would not prevent the petitioner from raising the argument that the notice was sent to the wrong address, leading to the expiration of the time limit for issuance of the notice. The petition was disposed of accordingly, leaving room for further examination of the issues in the appropriate departmental proceedings.