9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (5) TMI 1444X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to 31.03.2021. Pertinently, just one day prior to expiry of limitation the AO issued notice u/s 148 of the Act through the ITBA portal. Revenue has failed to establish on record that the notice so issued was served upon the assessee. Decided against revenue. - Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice President And Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh, Accountant Member For the Assessee : Shri S.K. Aggarwal, CA For the Department : Shri Vijay B Vasanta CIT(DR) ORDER PER SAKTIJIT DEY, VP: The captioned appeal has been filed by the assessee assailing the final assessment order dated 27.01.2023 passed u/s 147 read with section 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act ), pertaining to the assessment year 2013-14, in pursuance to the directions of the learned Dispute Resolution Panel-1, New Delhi ( DRP ). 2. Though, the assessee has raised multiple grounds, however, at the very outset, learned counsel for the assessee drew our attention to ground no. 2 and submitted that the appeal may be heard on the preliminary legal issue raised therein and thereafter, if necessary, the grounds raised on merits can be gone into. Learned Departmental Representative agreed with the aforesaid submission of the assessee. In view o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee were found to be devoid of merit, hence rejected. In terms with the directions of learned DRP, the Assessing Officer passed the final assessment order retaining the addition proposed in the draft assessment order. 3.3 Before us, learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the notice u/s 148 of the Act, which is a mandatory requirement for reopening of assessment, was never served on the assessee. He submitted, the materials on record would go to show that the notice purportedly issued u/s 148 of the Act was never communicated to the assessee in the correct e-mail ID, but was sent to some unknown e-mail ID. He submitted, since the notice was generated through ITBA portal, the assessee could not have accessed the notice in March 2021 without creating a login ID. He submitted, the assessee had registered his e-mail ID in ITBA portal only on 31.03.2022. Therefore, there was no occasion on the part of the assessee even to access the ITBA portal. Drawing our attention to the report of the Assessing Officer, learned counsel submitted that the response received from the Systems Directorate of the Department clearly reveals that on 30.03.2021, the ITBA generated notice u/s 148 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ctions, the Assessing Officer appeared personally and assisted the Ld. CIT-DR. In the course of proceedings, the Assessing Officer logged into the ITBA Portal in the Court Room and showed the case history of the matter. The worklist on ITBA portal showed notice(s) sent to the assessee item- wise from time to time. The last column in the worklist included a link to view email. On clicking on 'view email', a page opened showing the email address of the recipient and the content of the email. It also had boxes to show the delivery date/time and status of the email sent. However, in most of the items these boxes were blank and not showing any details of delivery. In some cases notification that email is bounced back was seen and no further details could be seen from the portal. On the other hand, Ld. AR showed the assessee's account on e-filing portal which showed that the notice under section 148 was addressed to the email account which does not belong to the assessee and there was no mention of the date of sending the email. Delivery status WAS also not known from the e-filing portal. On a query from the Bench, the AO was unable to answer why the delivery status was not v ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ered by user on 26-JUN-21 on email id [email protected] however same was bounced again. Mail was resent by user on 23-Jan-22 on mail id [email protected] however it was not triggered from the system. 2) Source of the above two e-mail ids from where ITBA picked up these email addresses for service of notice u/s 148 of the Act. Both email ids were entered by ITD user. 4.3 A perusal of the response of Systems Directorate would reveal that notice u/s 148 of the Act generated on 30.03.2021 was sent to e-mail ID [email protected] , which, however, was not served but bounced. The same email was again retriggered on 26.06.2021 on very same e-mail ID [email protected] , however, it again bounced back. It is further seen from the aforesaid response that same e-mail was again sent on 23.01.2022 on e-mail ID [email protected] . However, it was not triggered from the system. It is further to be noted that as per the response of the Systems Directorate, both the email IDs were generated by ITD user. On a query from the Bench, learned Departmental Representative clarified that ITD user means the Assessing Officer . 4.4 Thus, from the response of the Systems Directorate, as noted ab ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
