9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (4) TMI 695 - HC - Income TaxValidity of notice u/s 148-A - As argued notice was served requiring Assessee to response within one day - mandation of minimum of 7 days to respond to the show cause notice - as argued amended procedure under the Finance Act, 2021, respondent No. 1 was bound to allow a minimum of 7 days to respond to the show cause notice after the same is served upon the petitioner - HELD THAT - Notice was served upon on 26.03.2022 requiring Assessee to response within one day i.e 27.03.2022, is without any basis, as the opportunity of being heard was provided to the assessee, as the notice was issued on 20.03.2022 at the address given on the PAN database through speed post. The petitioner herself admitted that the notice was served upon her on 26.03.2022. Reference was made to Clause (b) of Section 148 of Act 1961 and as per this clause, the petitioner could have filed an application for extension of time. But the petitioner neither filed any reply nor filed any application for extension of time. The order dated 01.04.2022 (P-3) has rightly been passed on 7th day as per Clause (b) of Section 148 of Act 1961. On this very issue, Hon ble the Supreme Court in a case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai vs. I-Ven Interactive Ltd, Mumbai 2019 (10) TMI 785 - SUPREME COURT held that issuance of notice at the address listed in the PAN database is sufficient compliance of issue of notice, and that in the absence of any specific intimation to the Assessing Officer, the Assessing Officer would be justified in sending notice at the available address mentioned in the PAN Database. In the present case, the petitioner was having the knowledge of notice on 26.03.2022 and she has not given any reply to the said show cause notice. Thus, the impugned order came to be passed on the 7th day i.e on 07.04.2022. The notice has been sent at the address given on the PAN Data base. AO initiated the proceedings in accordance with Section 148A read with Section 149/151. The approval of specified authority as per Section 151 of Act 1961 was obtained at every stage. The petitioner chose not to file reply to the notice and hence the notice issued on 20.03.2022 through speed post at the address given on the PAN Data base was sufficient to return a finding that the respondents had served the notice at the correct address. Moreover, petitioner herself has admitted that the notice was received on 26.03.2022. Whether the petitioner having been served the notice at the correct address, the proceedings initiated for reassessment can be quashed ? - The answer is No . Further the case i.e Jindal Forgings case 2022 (7) TMI 600 - JHARKHAND HIGH COURT cited by learned counsel for the petitioner will not be applicable to the facts of the present case, as in that case only three days time was given to the petitioner to file reply. In the present case, the show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 26.03.2022 (Annexure P-2) and on the 7th day itself, the impugned notice dated 01.04.2022 (P-3) was passed. The petitioner instead of filing reply chose to approach this Court. Finding no merit, the writ petition is dismissed.
Issues Involved:
The issues in this case involve the validity of a notice issued under Section 148-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the grounds on which the petitioner is challenging the notice. Summary: The petitioner-assessee filed a writ petition seeking to quash a notice dated 01.04.2022 passed under Section 148-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner challenged the notice on various grounds, including the failure to allow a minimum of 7 days to respond, lack of competence of the issuing authority, and absence of an opportunity for a hearing before the notice was issued. The respondent, on the other hand, contended that the notice was served correctly and in compliance with statutory provisions. The court considered relevant case law and statutory provisions in reaching its decision. On the first ground, the petitioner argued that the notice did not comply with the amended procedure under the Finance Act, 2021, which required a minimum of 7 days to respond. However, the court found that the notice was served on 26.03.2022, and the order was passed on the 7th day, meeting the statutory requirement. Regarding the competence of the issuing authority, the petitioner contended that the authority was not competent to conclude the proceedings. However, the court found that the authority had followed the necessary procedures and obtained approval at every stage as per Section 151 of the Act. The petitioner also raised concerns about the lack of an opportunity for a hearing before the notice was issued. The court considered relevant judgments, including the Supreme Court's decision in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai vs. I-Ven Interactive Ltd, which emphasized the importance of serving notice at the address listed in the PAN database. In conclusion, the court found that the notice was served correctly, and the petitioner failed to respond within the specified time. The court dismissed the writ petition, noting that the cited case law was not applicable to the facts of the present case.
|
