2024 (5) TMI 1444 - AT - Income Tax

Validity of the re-assessment order - no notice u/s 148 was ever served on the assessee - notice u/s 148 issued through the ITBA portal but sent on wrong email ID - HELD THAT - As notice u/s 148 of the Act generated in the ITBA portal on 30.03.2021 was sent to e-mail ID which does not belong to assessee To prove such fact, assessee has brought to our notice that for the first time the assessee through the help of a tax consultant in India registered himself on the e-filing portal on 31.03.2022 with the e-mail ID [email protected], which was confirmed through the e-mail received from [email protected]. Thus, the facts narrated above clearly reveal that the notice u/s 148 generated on 30.03.2021, on ITBA portal was not served on the assessee. For the assessment year under dispute the limitation for issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act in usual course would have ended on 30.03.2020. Due to the situation arising on account of Covid-19, the limitation got extended to 31.03.2021. Pertinently, just one day prior to expiry of limitation the AO issued notice u/s 148 of the Act through the ITBA portal. Revenue has failed to establish on record that the notice so issued was served upon the assessee. Decided against revenue.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the assessment order due to non-service of notice u/s 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Summary of Judgment:

Issue 1: Validity of the assessment order due to non-service of notice u/s 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961

The assessee, a non-resident individual and professional cricketer, challenged the validity of the assessment order dated 27.01.2023 passed u/s 147 read with section 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2013-14. The primary contention was that no notice u/s 148 of the Act was ever served on the assessee. The Assessing Officer (AO) had issued a notice u/s 133(6) on 20.03.2021, and subsequently, a notice u/s 148 on 30.03.2021, which was allegedly served on the assessee. However, the assessee did not respond, leading the AO to complete the assessment ex parte u/s 144.

The Tribunal examined whether the notice u/s 148 was validly served. The assessee argued that the notice was sent to an incorrect email ID and was never received. The AO's records showed that the notice was sent to an email ID not belonging to the assessee and had bounced back. The Systems Directorate confirmed that the notice was sent to an incorrect email ID and was not successfully delivered.

The Tribunal concluded that the notice u/s 148 was not served within the statutory period, rendering the assessment invalid. The Tribunal emphasized that service of notice u/s 148 is a mandatory requirement for reopening an assessment u/s 147. The failure to serve the notice within the limitation period invalidated the subsequent assessment proceedings.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal quashed the assessment order due to the invalid service of notice u/s 148, rendering the grounds on merits academic and not requiring adjudication. The appeal was allowed, and the order was pronounced in open court on 29.05.2024.