9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (12) TMI 1185X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the present case, the respondent has not considered the said aspect and proceeded to pass orders by stating that the petitioner failed to respond to the notice dated 23.03.2022 and hence, the proposals contained in the show cause notice dated 23.03.2023 is confirmed. Therefore, as rightly pointed out by petitioner, the impugned order suffers from violation of principles of natural justice, since it blatantly violates the provisions of Section 148 (b), AO has to give time not less than seven days but not more than 30 days to the assessee for furnishing his explanation and further, the respondent, despite knowing fully well that the notice served on the petitioner by post was received by him only 28.03.2022, ought to have granted further time, in terms of Section 148 (b) of the Act of not exceeding 30 days, and waited for the petitioner's reply and before passing the impugned order, heard the petitioner and in the absence of same having been failed to be done by the respondent, not only the impugned Notice dated 23.03.2022 has to be quashed and entire proceedings, initiated in furtherance of the same are also to be quashed. Therefore, the contention of respondent that noti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... said amount, the petitioner deposited Rs. 15,00,000/- with City Union Bank. ii) Whileso, the petitioner received an impugned notice No.1 dated 23.03.2023, to show cause as to why proceedings under Section under Section 148 (b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, the Act) should not be initiated against the petitioner/assessee, for, the amount more than Rupees 50 Lakh had escaped assessment for the AY 2015-16. iii) According to the petitioner, the sale of immovable property was an agricultural property, which is exempted from tax and the respondent treated the total sale proceeds of Rs. 74,75,000 as the petitioner's income, even though the petitioner is entitled to only 1/3rd i.e. Rs. 24,91,667/- Therefore, the information, which is available with the respondent is factually incorrect. iv) However, the respondent passed the impugned order on 05.04.2022 and also issued consequential impugned notice No.2 on 06.04.2022. Aggrieved by the aforesaid notices dated 23.03.2022, 05.04.2022 and 06.04.2022, the petitioner is before this Court by way of present Writ Petition challenging the same. 3. Mr.N.V.Balaji, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner assailed the i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ortal has to be deemed to be sufficient service and hence, it is stated that once the respondent-Department has issued notice irrespective of any other mode of service, that would be sufficient for the purpose of calculating the 7 days time. Further, it is contended that since the petitioner has not provided e-mail ID, notice was sent by post and in terms of Section 148 A (b) notice dated 23.03.2022 was issued to the petitioner granting not less than 7 clear days for filing response i.e. on or before 29.03.2022, but, the same was received by the petitioner by speed post only on 28.08.2022, however, since the said notice dated 23.03.2022 was also served on the petitioner through e-portal, the respondent deemed the same to be sufficient service and based on the same reckoned the time for filing response, since the petitioner failed to file response/reply within the time stipulated, the respondent proceeded to confirm the proceedings contained in the show cause notice and passed the order dated 05.04.2022 and hence, the orders impugned herein are sustainable in law and that in terms of Section 148 A (b) of the Act, the notice period of 7 days has to be reckoned from 23.03.2022. 5. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... such notice is issued, or such time, as may be extended by him on the basis of an application in this behalf, as to why, a notice under section 148 should not be issued on the basis of information which suggests that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment in his case for the relevant assessment year and results of enquiry conducted, if any, as per clause (a). Section 282 Service of notice (1) The service of a notice or summon or requisition or order or any other communication under this Act (hereafter in this section referred to as communication ) may be made by delivering or transmitting a copy thereof, to the person therein named, a) by post or by such courier services as may be approved by the Board; or b) in such manner as provided under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) for the purpose of service of summons; or c) in the form of any electronic record as provided in Chapter IV of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (21 of 2000) or d) by any other means of transmission of documents as provided by rules made by the Board in this behalf. 127 .(1) [Service of notice, summons, requisition, order and other communication. For the purpo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ys has to be reckoned, whereas, in the present case, the respondent has not considered the said aspect and proceeded to pass orders by stating that the petitioner failed to respond to the notice dated 23.03.2022 and hence, the proposals contained in the show cause notice dated 23.03.2023 is confirmed. 10.1 Therefore, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the impugned order suffers from violation of principles of natural justice, since it blatantly violates the provisions of Section 148 (b) of the Act, an Assessing officer has to give time not less than seven days but not more than 30 days to the assessee for furnishing his explanation and further, the respondent, despite knowing fully well that the notice served on the petitioner by post was received by him only 28.03.2022, ought to have granted further time, in terms of Section 148 (b) of the Act of not exceeding 30 days, and waited for the petitioner's reply and before passing the impugned order, heard the petitioner and in the absence of same having been failed to be done by the respondent, not only the impugned Notice dated 23.03.2022 has to be quashed and entire proceedings, initiated in fu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
