9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (4) TMI 695X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cation 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Section 148 of Act 1961 by respondent No. 1 and the petitioner was directed to file a return of income within 30 days from the service of the notice. Hence, the present writ petition. Petitioner is challenging notice on the following grounds:- (i) Firstly, the as per the 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 on 26.03.2022. (ii) Secondly, as per Section 149 (1) (b) and Section 151 of Act 1961, respondent No. 1 was not competent to conclude the proceedings against the petitioner. (iii) Thirdly, notice had been issued on the e filing portal without any information to the petitioner. No opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner before passing of impugned notice. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to judgment of Jharkand High Court in a case of Jindal Forgings vs. Income Tax Department, (2022) 143 taxmann.com wherein the application filed by the petitioner was allowed which was for seeking quashing of letter passed under Section 148A (D) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 whereby it has been ordered t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 418 ITR 662 (SC) 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. Reference has further been made to judgment of Hon ble the Supreme Court of India in a case of C.C. Alavi Haji vs. Palapetty Muhammed, reported as 2007 (6) SCC 555 wherein it has been held as under:- Section 27 gives rise to a presumption that service of notice has been effected when it is sent to the correct address by registered post. In view of the said presumption, when stating that a notice has been sent by registered post to the address of the drawyer, it is unnecessary to further aver in the complaint that in spite of the return of the notice unserved, it is deemed to have been served or that the addressee is deemed to have knowledge of the notice. Reference has been made to judgment of this Court in a case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Naveen Verma, 2012 (346) ITR 100 (P H), wherein it was held as under: The above provisi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... violation is by itself proof of prejudice. The court may not insist on proof of prejudice in such cases. As explained in the body of the judgment, take a case where there is a provision expressly providing that after the evidence of the employer/Government is over, the employee shall be given an opportunity to lead defence in his evidence, and in a given case, the enquiry officer does not give that opportunity in spite of the delinquent officer/employee asking for it. The prejudice is self-evident. No proof of prejudice as such need be called for in such a case. To repeat, the test is one of prejudice, i.e., whether the person has received a fair hearing considering all things. Now, this very aspect can also be looked at from the point of view of directory and mandatory provisions, if one is so inclined. The principle stated under (4) hereinbelow is only another way of looking at the same aspect as is dealt with herein and not a different or distinct principle. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case titled as Banarsi Devi Vs. Income = Officer, Calcutta, reported as [1964] 53 ITR 100 (SC) has held that wider meaning of the word issued must be accepted. The Hon&# ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ordance 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. The next question for consideration is that 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 (supra) 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 m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
