9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (2) TMI 1121 - HC - Income TaxValidity of order passed u/s 148A(d) - Shorter period granted to respond to notice - Non consideration of reply while passing the order - notice dated 22.03.2022 issued under Section 148A(b) required response to the same being filed by 28.03.2022 - since the portal was closed, the reply was transmitted to the concerned officer via email dated 29.03.2022 - HELD THAT - It is not disputed that this reply was not considered by the assessing officer while passing the order dated 30.03.2022 under Section 148A(d) of the Act. A perusal of the said order would show that according to the assessing officer, income amounting to Rs. 1,03,24,000/- has escaped assessment. In this context, reference is made to cash deposits and withdrawals reflected in the petitioner s current account maintained with HDFC Bank Ltd. Given the fact that the timelines were short and the petitioner s reply could not be considered, we are inclined to set aside the impugned order with a direction to the assessing officer to consider the petitioner s reply and pass a fresh order.
Issues involved: Challenge to order under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act for AY 2018-19, challenge to notices under Sections 148 and 148A(b) of the Act, failure to consider petitioner's response, setting aside the impugned order for fresh consideration.
Analysis: 1. The writ petition challenged an order dated 30.03.2022 under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act for AY 2018-19, along with notices issued under Sections 148 and 148A(b) of the Act. The petitioner contended that the notice under Section 148A(b) required a response by 28.03.2022, but due to portal closure, the reply was sent via email on 29.03.2022, which was not considered by the assessing officer while passing the impugned order. 2. The assessing officer's order indicated that income of Rs. 1,03,24,000/- had escaped assessment based on cash deposits and withdrawals from the petitioner's HDFC Bank Ltd. current account. Due to the short timelines and non-consideration of the petitioner's reply, the court decided to set aside the impugned order and directed the assessing officer to reconsider the petitioner's response and pass a fresh order. 3. The court ordered the assessing officer to provide a personal hearing to the petitioner's authorized representative and subsequently issue a fresh order after considering the petitioner's reply. The writ petition was disposed of with these directions, and pending applications were closed accordingly. This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the issues raised, the arguments presented, and the court's decision to set aside the order for fresh consideration, ensuring a fair opportunity for the petitioner to respond and be heard in the assessment process.
|
