9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (6) TMI 89 - HC - Income TaxReopening of assessment - request for adjournment immediately after receipt of notice u/s 148A(d) - HELD THAT - In the present case though the petitioner had filed an application for adjournment immediately after receipt of notice dated 17th March 2022 the respondent had neither rejected the request for adjournment nor directed the petitioner to file a reply within the original stipulated time. Petitioner had filed its response/submission on 27th March 2022 by way of an email addressed to the Assessing Officer as the notice under Section 148A(b) had been received from the said email address. As the impugned order under Section 148A(d) of the Act had been passed after receipt of the said email this Court is of the view that Assessing Officer should have considered the same as the reply was available on record. By not considering the reply of the Petitioner dated 27 th March 2022 the mandate of Section 148A(c) has been violated as it casts a duty on the Assessing Officer by using the expression shall to consider the reply of the Petitioner/assessee in response to notice under Section 148A(b) before making an order under Section 148A(d) of the Act. Consequently the impugned order dated 30th March 2022 issued under Section 148A(d) of the Act and the notice dated 31st March 2022 issued under Section 148 of the Act are set aside. The respondent is directed to take the submission filed on 27th March 2022 on record and pass a reasoned order in accordance with law within eight weeks.
Issues:
Challenge to Order under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and Notice under Section 148 for assessment year 2018-19. Analysis: The petitioner challenged the Order dated 30th March, 2022 passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the notice dated 31st March, 2022 issued under Section 148 for the assessment year 2018-19. The petitioner contended that they were granted only seven days to respond to the Show Cause Notice under Section 148A(b) and requested an extension until 27th March, 2022, which was communicated via email due to the online portal closure on 24th March, 2022. The respondent argued that the Assessing Officer had the right to close the online portal and that the petitioner could not presume the adjournment would be allowed. The Court noted that the petitioner has the right to adequate time to respond under Section 148A(b) and that the Assessing Officer can provide up to thirty days for a response, extendable further upon application by the assessee. The Court emphasized that the period granted to the petitioner for response is excluded in computing the limitation period for issuing notice under Section 148A(d) of the Act. Although the petitioner filed for adjournment immediately after receiving the notice, the respondent neither rejected nor directed a reply within the original stipulated time. The petitioner submitted their response on 27th March, 2022 via email, which the Court deemed as available on record before the impugned order under Section 148A(d) was passed. The Court found that the Assessing Officer should have considered the reply before making the order, as Section 148A(c) mandates the consideration of the assessee's response before passing an order under Section 148A(d). Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned order dated 30th March, 2022, and the notice dated 31st March, 2022. The respondent was directed to consider the submission filed on 27th March, 2022, and to pass a reasoned order within eight weeks, clarifying that no comments were made on the merits of the controversy. The rights and contentions of all parties were left open, and the writ petition along with pending applications was disposed of with the given direction.
|
