2022 (5) TMI 627 - HC - Income Tax

Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - Period of limitation to issue notice - Date of issuance of notice - communication in electronic form - objection of the petitioner against the notice under Section 148 - date and time of triggering of e-mail for issuing notices and orders - digitally signing notice automatically amount to issuance of notice - Whether digitally signing a notice and issuing it are two different acts ? - Breach of Judicial Discipline-Misconduct-Contemptuous - HELD THAT - From the averments made by the respondent nos. 2,3 and 4 in the aforesaid short counter affidavit, it is evident that the notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the Assessment Year 2013-14 was issued to the petitioner on 01.04.2021, whereas the limitation of issuing the notice expired on 31.03.2021. Thus notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was time barred and consequently it was without jurisdiction. Since large number of writ petitions are being filed in which the date and time of issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 are in issue, and, importantly, those notices are being issued by e-mail, it is directed that the respondent no. 1 shall ensure that the date and time of triggering of e-mail for issuing notices and orders are reflected in the online portal relating to the concerned assessees. Facts of the case as discussed above, particularly the observations made by the respondent no.4 in the last line of the impugned order dated 19.03.2022 noticed by us in our order 2022 (5) TMI 421 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT above clearly indicates that the order dated 19.02.2022 has been passed by the respondents in breach of judicial discipline and propriety causing harassment to the petitioner/assessee on account of the failure to give effect to the order of this Court 2022 (3) TMI 1373 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT which was filed by the petitioner. We propose to comment on the conduct of the officer concerned but the respondents have tendered unconditional apology by filing a short counter affidavit dated 22.04.2022, as noted in para 7 above, therefore, in view of the unconditional apology tendered by the deponent Sri Pawan Kumar Sharma, Additional Commissioner of Income Tax in the aforesaid short counter affidavit, we do not propose to proceed against the respondent no.4 by referring the matter for contempt. However, we direct the respondents to be careful in future and must have due regard to the judgments and orders of this Court, keeping in mind the settled principal of judicial propriety and discipline We direct the respondents to maintain judicial discipline and follow the doctrine of binding precedent and be careful in future, having due regard to the authorities of the Court, keeping in mind the judicial propriety and discipline. The impugned notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, being without jurisdiction, cannot be sustained and is hereby quashed. Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act.
2. Compliance with judicial orders and principles of judicial discipline and propriety.
3. Consequences of issuing a time-barred notice.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of Notice Issued Under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act:
The petitioner challenged the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act for the Assessment Year 2013-14, arguing it was time-barred. The court found that the notice was issued on 01.04.2021, while the limitation period expired on 31.03.2021. The court concluded that the notice was time-barred and consequently without jurisdiction, rendering it invalid. The court quashed the notice dated 31.03.2021, the order dated 19.03.2022, and the Reassessment Order dated 29.03.2022, as they were based on the invalid notice.

2. Compliance with Judicial Orders and Principles of Judicial Discipline and Propriety:
The court observed that the respondent's conduct in passing the impugned order dated 19.03.2022 was highly contemptuous, whimsical, and against settled principles of propriety and law. The respondent failed to disclose material facts and misled the court by not providing the 'sent time stamp' reports. The court emphasized the importance of judicial discipline and propriety, citing several Supreme Court judgments. It directed the respondents to follow judicial discipline and the doctrine of binding precedent, ensuring that orders of higher appellate authorities are followed unreservedly.

3. Consequences of Issuing a Time-Barred Notice:
The court noted that issuing a time-barred notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act caused undue harassment to the petitioner. It highlighted that judicial discipline requires that orders of higher appellate authorities be followed without reservation. The court directed the respondent authorities to ensure that the date and time of triggering emails for issuing notices and orders are reflected in the online portal relating to the concerned assessees. The court also directed the respondents to be careful in the future and have due regard for the judgments and orders of the court, keeping in mind the settled principles of judicial propriety and discipline.

Conclusion:
The court allowed the writ petition, quashing the impugned notice, order, and reassessment order. It directed the respondent authorities to maintain judicial discipline and follow the doctrine of binding precedent. The court also ordered the Registrar General to circulate the judgment among the authorities under the Income Tax Act for observance of judicial discipline and propriety principles.