2024 (8) TMI 52 - HC - Income Tax

Validity of reopening of assessment - impugned order states that the petitioner has not submitted any explanation - HELD THAT - The said reply has been sent by the petitioner electronically on 22.03.2024. However, the impugned order states that the petitioner has not submitted any explanation. It appears that the petitioner had responded to the notice u/s 148A (b), dated 13.03.2024 to the 2nd respondent and thus, the reply, dated 22.03.2024 sent electronically was not communicated to the 1st respondent. Therefore, this is a fit case for interfering with the impugned order, dated 30.03.2024 passed under Section 148A (d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the impugned notice, dated 30.03.2024 under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Under these circumstances, the impugned order and the notice, dated 30.03.2024 are quashed and the case is remitted back to the file of the 1st respondent to pass a fresh orders on merits and in accordance with law. This writ petition is disposed of by giving liberty to the petitioner to file additional reply, if any, within a period of two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The impugned order, dated 30.03.2024 passed u/s 148A (d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 shall be treated addendum to show cause notice, dated 13.03.2024 issued under Section 148A (d) of the Income Tax, 1961

Summary

The High Court of Madras, with Honourable Mr. Justice C. Saravanan presiding, heard a writ petition challenging a notice issued under Section 148 (A) (b) of the Income Tax Act, an order passed under Section 148A (d), and another notice issued under Section 148 for the assessment year 2017-18. The petitioner, a permanent resident of Canada and an NRI, claimed that the notice issued under Section 148A (b) was not received in a timely manner, resulting in a violation of natural justice. The petitioner also expressed technical difficulties in participating in the assessment proceedings due to notices not being displayed on the income tax portal.

The petitioner's counsel requested the impugned order to be set aside for a fresh speaking order and representation sent to the 1st respondent to be acknowledged. The Standing Counsel for the respondents argued that the petitioner should have filed regular returns and participated in the assessment proceedings, and that no prejudice was caused by the order under Section 148A (d) of the Income Tax Act.

After considering the arguments, the court found that the petitioner's reply to the notice under Section 148A (b) was not communicated to the 1st respondent, leading to interference with the impugned order and notice. The court quashed the order and notice dated 30.03.2024, remitting the case back to the 1st respondent for fresh orders. The petitioner was granted two weeks to file an additional reply, and the respondents were directed to address technical issues in the portal for uploading replies. The 1st respondent was instructed to pass orders promptly and in accordance with the law.

The writ petition was disposed of without costs, and connected Miscellaneous Petitions were closed.