9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (2) TMI 655X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the case was flagged in accordance with the risk management strategy by the Central Board of Direct Taxes ("CBDT") for non-filing of returns and on having information that the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment; it also challenges the impugned order dated 5th April 2022 issued under Section 148A(d) of the Act principally on the ground that the same requires a separate approval from the PCCIT since it was passed after expiry of three years from the end of the relevant AY 2018- 19 i.e. by 31st March 2022 and the notice dated 13 April 2022 u/s. 148 of Act seeking to reopen the petitioner's assessment for AY 2018-19 Facts: 2. The petitioner is a housewife, was assessable as an individual under the Act and since she had income ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 304 ITR 333 (Punjab & Haryana High Court). His challenge to the order dated 5th April 2022 was on the ground of sanction i.e. since it was passed after expiry of three years the approval of the PCCIT would have to be taken as contemplated by section 151(ii) r.w.s 148(d) of the IT Act and the previous sanction taken from PCIT would not suffice. 4. With regard to the impugned notice under 148 dated 13th April 2022 he submitted that it was hand delivered to the petitioner on 21st April 2022 when she visited the respondent's office pursuant to a message received on her registered mobile number (registered with the PAN) on 18th April 2022 and therefore not duly served. He submitted that the respondents ought to have effected delivery through r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... counsel on behalf of the respondents contended that the notice u/s. 148A(b) is dated 20 March 2022 and was sent to the petitioner via speed post. He submitted that since the notice was within three years i.e. before 31st March 2022, from the end of the relevant A.Y. 2018-19, the respondents had rightly taken the sanction from the PCIT in accordance with Section 151(i) of the IT Act. He submitted that since there was no reply furnished by the petitioner, the order could be passed on or before 30 April 2022. Consequently, the order passed u/s. 148A(d) on 5 April 2022 was passed in accordance with law. He submitted that in the present case, there was information available on the portal of the risk management strategy formulated by the CBDT und ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... notice dated 20th March 2022, it is the case of the petitioner that they had not received any notice dated 20th March 2022 and the revenue contended that it was served through speed post at the last known address. It is evident that though the respondents had the new address of the petitioner as evinced from the ITR filed on 10th January 2021, the respondents chose to send the notice to their old address. We also find no averment or proof of the service of notice dated 20th March 2022 on the petitioner in respondent's affidavit in reply dated 14th November 2022. The cascading effect of non-service was the petitioner did not get an opportunity to respond to the notice. Consequently, the notice dated 20th March 2022 and the proceedings there ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
