9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (2) TMI 585X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es a period lesser than a period of seven days as contemplated in the said provision, the said notice would be vitiated resulting in quashment of not only the notice but also the subsequent assessment orders, penalty notices, orders, etc. In the instant case, it is an undisputed fact that the Notice is not signed either physically or digitally but the impugned notice also prescribes a period of six days, which is lesser than the minimum prescribed period of seven days as contemplated under Section 148A(b) of the IT Act. Under these circumstances, in the light of the judgment of this Court in Begur s case [ 2023 (11) TMI 1222 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] and the judgment of the Bombay High Court in Mukesh s case supra, Impugned notice and also consequential proceedings, orders, notices, etc., deserves to be quashed by reserving liberty in favour of the respondents to take recourse to such remedies as available in law. Decided in favour of assessee. - HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR For the Petitioner : Sri. Ravi Shankar S V., Advocate) For the Respondents : Sri. M. Dileep, Advocate ORDER In this petition, petitioner has sought for the following re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... counsel for the petitioner invites my attention to the impugned Notice dated 21.03.2022 issued under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act (for short, IT Act ) in order to point out that the said notice issued by respondent No. 1 to the petitioner for the Assessment Year 2015-16 calling upon the petitioner to submit his response / reply within a period of six days, is contrary to the prescribed period of seven days as contemplated under Section 148A(b) of the IT Act, which is illegal, invalid and inoperative and no proceedings pursuant thereto could have been taken by the respondents and the same deserve to be quashed and as such, the said notice as well as all subsequent proceedings including reassessment order issued under Section 148A(b), notices, etc., deserve to be quashed. It is submitted that despite the aforesaid facts and circumstances, respondent No.2 proceeded to pass the impugned re-assessment order, which deserved to be quashed. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents would support the impugned order, notices, etc., and submit that there is no merit in the petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner is correc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tioner commenced his own business under the name and style M/s Gagan Enterprises selling currency for mobile recharge; that the cash deposits even during this subsequent assessment year is treated as business income; the petitioner s income is determined at the rate of 3% of the gross turn over; that the petitioner would not be liable for any income tax for the relevant assessment year and even otherwise if cash deposits are treated as gross business turn over, the petitioner s liability will be below Rs. 3,00,000/- at the rate of 3% and hence, the first respondent cannot assume jurisdiction to initiate proceedings. 5. Sri Ravishankar S V, relying upon the aforesaid circumstances, submits that for these reasons and in view of the indisputable fact that the notice under Section 148A(b) is not digitally signed, the proceedings must fail. Sri M. Dilip submits that he cannot contest the assertion that 148A(b) notice is not digitally signed especially when the adjudication order under Section 148A(d) and the subsequent proceedings are digitally signed or that in very similar circumstances, the High Court of Bombay in Prakash Krishnavtar Bharadwaj vs. Income Tax Officer supra has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ibed under Section 148A(b) of the IT Act as held by the High Court of Bombay in the case of Mukesh J. Ruparel Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 27(2)(1) W.P.No. 15268/2023 dated 25.07.2023, that if notice under Section 148A(b) prescribes a period lesser than a period of seven days as contemplated in the said provision, the said notice would be vitiated resulting in quashment of not only the notice but also the subsequent assessment orders, penalty notices, orders, etc. In the aforesaid judgment of the Bombay High Court, it is held as under: Petitioner is impugning a notice dated 15th March 2023 issued under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act), the order dated 31st March 2023 passed under Section 148-A(d) of the Act and notice dated 31st March 2023 issued under Section 148 of the Act. 2. Petitioner is an individual who did not file return of income for Assessment Year 2016-17 because his income was less than taxable limit. 3. Petitioner received a notice dated 15th March 2023 under Clause 148A(b) of the Act from Respondent No. 1, stating that Respondent No. 1 has information which suggests that income chargeable to tax for Assessment Year 2016-17 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e approval under Section 151 of the Act which is annexed to the impugned order is of one Poonam Vijay Chhabria whose PAN number is also entirely different from the PAN number of Petitioner. Respondent No. 1 is totally silent about the objections raised by Petitioner of minimum seven days notice required. Mr. Gandhi states that on each of these grounds not only the impugned order dated 31st March 2023 but also the notice dated 31st March 2023 itself should be quashed and set aside. 8. No reply has been filed though Petition was served more than a month ago. We have, therefore, decided to go ahead and consider the matter and dispose it since we were, prima facie, satisfied that there was merit in Petitioner's submissions. Section 148-A(B) of the Act reads as under:- provide an opportunity of being heard to the assessee, by serving upon him a notice to show cause within such time, as may be specified in the notice, being not less than seven days and but not exceeding thirty days from the date on which 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 is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er, there is a factually incorrect statement made in the order that the affidavit of Petitioner's brother that was submitted was not notarised when it was factually a notarised affidavit. 13. Further, in the impugned order, it is stated that the HDFC statement / document do not substantiate the credit worthiness and genuineness of the lender of the gift, i.e., brother of Petitioner. Mr. Gandhi states that if only Petitioner was called upon to submit, Petitioner would have submitted evidence towards credit worthiness of the brother because in the show cause notice issued, Petitioner was only directed to call upon to disclose the source from which he got money to pay for the flat. In over view, therefore,, on this ground also, the impugned order dated 31st March 2023 is required to be quashed and set aside. 14. Accordingly, we hereby quash and set aside the notice dated 15th March 2023 issued under clause (b) of Section 148-A of the Act, the impugned order dated 31st March 2023 issued under clause (d) of Section 148A of the Act and consequent notice dated 31st March 2023 issued under Section 148 of the Act. 15. Petition disposed. There shall be no order as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
