9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (5) TMI 1444X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es, we proceed to adjudicate ground no. 2 at the very outset. 3. In ground no. 2 the assessee has challenged the validity of the impugned assessment order on the ground that no notice u/s 148 of the Act was ever served on the assessee. Before we proceed to decide this issue, it is necessary to briefly deal with the relevant facts. 3.1 The assessee is a non-resident individual, being a tax resident of Australia. As stated, the assessee is a professional cricketer. Based on certain information available on record, the Assessing Officer found that in the year under dispute the assessee had received an amount of Rs. 3,01,67,697/- from three Indian entities, namely, Reebok India Company; Castrol India Limited; and Knight Riders Sports Private Limited. Whereas, the assessee had not filed any return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act. As observed by the Assessing Officer, on 20.03.2021 a notice u/s 133(6) of the Act was issued to the assessee seeking certain information relating to the transaction. However, since there was no compliance from assessee's side, the Assessing Officer, being of the view that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment, proceeded to reopen the assessment u/s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... il ID, which does not belong to the assessee. Thus, he submitted, the effect of notice u/s 148 of the Act, sent to an unrelated e-mail ID would amount to non-service of notice, hence, would invalidate all actions taken in pursuance to such notice as the service of notice u/s 148 of the Act is a sine qua non for making an assessment u/s 147 of the Act. In this context he relied upon a decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Suman Jeet Agarwal vs. Income-tax Officer (2022) 143 taxmann.com 11(Delhi). 3.4 The learned Departmental Representative submitted, the assessee has not raised this particular issue before learned DRP. Without prejudice, he submitted that since the notice u/s 148 of the Act was generated in ITBA portal on 30.03.2021, it must have been visible to the assessee. Therefore, it is to be construed that the notice has been validly served upon the assessee. 4. We have considered rival submissions and perused the materials on record. We have also applied our mind to the decision relied upon. The short issue that arises for consideration is whether the notice u/s 148 of the Act was served upon the assessee or not. There cannot be any manner of dou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... portal and how does the Revenue intend to establish that the notice has actually been issued to the assessee. The Assessing Officer/CIT-DR requested for some time to respond. Meanwhile, the Ld. A.R. was directed to file a fact sheet including the summation of today's proceeding qua the preliminary issue and thereafter Ld. DR was directed to obtain a para-wise reply thereof. Accordingly, Registry is directed to post the matter for further hearing as Part-Heard on 04.04.2024. Above was announced in the Open Court in the presence of both the parties." 4.1 From the observations made by the learned Bench, reproduced above, it can be seen that the Assessing Officer was present in the court room to show the case history of the proceedings. From the work list of ITBA portal, it was found that on clicking the 'view e-mail' box, though a page opened showing the e-mail address of the recipient and the contents of the e-mail, however, other boxes to show the delivery date/time and status of the e-mail sent were found to be blank and did not show any date of delivery. In some instances notification that e-mail has bounced was seen and no further detail could be seen from the portal. The B ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bove, it is very much clear that the notice u/s 148 of the Act generated in the ITBA portal on 30.03.2021 was sent to e-mail ID [email protected]. It is the specific assertion of the assessee that the said e-mail ID does not belong to him. To prove such fact, learned counsel for the assessee has brought to our notice that for the first time the assessee through the help of a tax consultant in India registered himself on the efiling portal on 31.03.2022 with the e-mail ID [email protected], which was confirmed through the e-mail received from [email protected]. Thus, the facts narrated above clearly reveal that the notice u/s 148 of the Act generated on 30.03.2021, on ITBA portal was not served on the assessee. 4.5 At this stage, we must observe that for the assessment year under dispute the limitation for issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act in usual course would have ended on 30.03.2020. However, due to the situation arising on account of Covid-19, the limitation got extended to 31.03.2021. Pertinently, just one day prior to expiry of limitation the Assessing Officer issued notice u/s 148 of the Act through the ITBA portal. However, the Revenue has failed to establish ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
