9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (12) TMI 1264 - HC - Income TaxValidity of reopening of assessment - Period of limitation - procedure u/s 148A - HELD THAT - In the present case, it is stated that a copy of the notice was sent thorough e-mail on 01.04.2021. Merely because the notice was made ready on 31.03.2021, it cannot be construed that the said notice was issued on 31.03.2021 itself. But the date of dispatch and the notice was issued by e-mail as well as by post is only on 01.04.2021. However, without considering these facts, the AO passed the Assessment Order on 23.03.2022. Therefore, based upon the notice issued u/s 148 on 31.03.2021, the impugned assessment order came to be passed by the respondents, which, in the opinion of this Court it was passed without any authority and the same is barred by limitation and hence the same is liable to be set aside. However, considering the submissions made on behalf of the respondents and in the interest of revenue, without directing the respondents to venture upon issuing fresh notices u/s 148A, in the interest of revenue, this Court feels that the impugned notice under Section 148 of the Act issued to the petitioner, shall be deemed to have been issued u/s 148A of the Act as amended by Finance Act, 2021 and in the light of the law laid down in the case of Union of India and Others Vs. Ashish Agarwal 2022 (5) TMI 240 - SUPREME COURT Accordingly, while setting aside the impugned assessment order, this Court directs the Assessment Officer to provide necessary documents to the petitioner within 30 days from the date of request made by him so that he can file his reply within two weeks from the date of receipt of the relevant documents.
Issues:
The issue involves challenging a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the consequential Assessment Order for the Assessment year 2015-2016. Details of the Judgment: The petitioner argued that the notice was served beyond the time limit as it was sent through e-mail without digital or manual signatures on 01.04.2021, even though it was dated 31.03.2021. The Assessment Order was passed on 23.03.2022 without considering these grounds raised by the petitioner. The respondents contended that the notice was issued within the period of limitation, uploaded on 31.03.2021, and sent by e-mail and registered post on 01.04.2021. They provided proof of affidavit to support their claim that there was no error in issuing the notice. It was further argued that a physical copy of the notice, manually signed and issued as per the provisions of the Income Tax Act, was dispatched on 31.03.2021 and served on the petitioner on 05.04.2021, duly acknowledged by the petitioner. An additional copy was also sent electronically via e-mail on 01.04.2021. Regarding the new procedure for reopening assessments under the Finance Act, 2021, it was stated that the reopening proceedings in this case were initiated before 01.04.2021 under the old provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961, hence not falling under the new procedure. The Court observed that the notice under Section 147 was issued on 31.03.2021 but claimed to be issued on 01.04.2021 by post and e-mail without digital signature. The Assessment Order was passed on 23.03.2022 without considering these facts. The Court held that the Assessment Order was passed without authority and was barred by limitation. To avoid issuing fresh notices, the Court deemed the impugned notice to have been issued under Section 148A of the Act as amended by the Finance Act, 2021, citing a relevant Supreme Court case. The Court set aside the Assessment Order and directed the Assessment Officer to provide necessary documents to the petitioner within 30 days of the request. The petitioner could then file a reply within two weeks, and fresh assessment/reassessment orders were to be passed after considering the reply and affording a personal hearing. The Writ Petition was allowed without costs, and the connected Miscellaneous Petition was closed.
|
