9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (2) TMI 1136X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t of giving seven (7) clear days for filing the response was not met. We are in agreement that ratio of the judgment in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Braithwaite Co. Ltd [ 1993 (3) TMI 90 - SUPREME COURT] would be applicable in the instant case, as the language of the provisions considered by the Supreme Court in that judgment is pari materia with the language used in clause (b) of Section 148A of the Act. Best course forward would be to set aside the impugned order passed under Section 148A(d) of the Act, and the consequent notice dated 31.03.2022 issued under Section 148 of the Act. Decided in favour of assessee. - W.P.(C) 1243/2023 & CM APPL. 4720/2023 - - - Dated:- 14-2-2023 - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER AND HON& ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tioner to file its response on or before 17.03.2022 . 4. It cannot be disputed that the requirement under Section 148A(b) of the Act is to accord time to an assessee not less than seven days and but not exceeding thirty days from the date on which the notice is issued . 5. Mr Kapoor submits that the expression not less than seven days commences from the date when the notice was issued, which will take the time required to be granted beyond 17.03.2022. 5.1 In support of his plea, Mr Kapoor has relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Braithwaite Co. Ltd (1993) 67 Taxman 155 (SC). In particular, reference is made to the observations made in paragraph 7 of the said judgment, which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... k Maratha, learned senior standing counsel, who appears on behalf of the respondent/revenue, has indicated, albeit, across the bar, that the notice dated 10.03.2022, issued under Section 148A(b) of the Act, would have been uploaded on the designated portal, and therefore, the reliance on the email dated 12.03.2022 by the petitioner/assessee will not help its cause. 7. In this context, we have queried Mr Maratha as to whether a real-time alert was sent to the petitioner via SMS. 7.1. Mr Maratha says that he will ascertain as to whether or not the notice was, firstly, uploaded on the designated portal and also whether a real-time alert was sent to the petitioner via SMS. 8. We may note that Mr Kapoor has conceded that there is no ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... digital signatures was corrected. 4. Pertinently, what we have on record is only a notice dated 10.03.2022, with an Annexure appended thereto, which is digitally signed on 11.03.2022. The instructions conveyed by Mr Maratha unequivocally establish that the notice dated 10.03.2022 was dispatched twice. The notice dated 10.03.2022, concededly, required the petitioner to file its response on or before 17.03.2022 . Therefore, undoubtedly, the statutory requirement of giving seven (7) clear days for filing the response was not met. 5. We are in agreement with Mr Kapoor, that the ratio of the judgment in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Braithwaite Co. Ltd (1993) 67 Taxman 155 (SC) would be applicable in the instant case, as the language ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
