9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (8) TMI 351X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s evident from the downloaded copy of SCN as the email of the appellant was not reflected on photo print of the SCN copy generated from the e-portal/ITBA portal of the Department, although the appellant has mentioned updated email addresses in its ITRs and personal profile on the ITBA portal of the respective Assessment Years as above. PCIT before any action is taken, a communication of the SCN notice and other notices shall be ensured in terms of the provisions as enumerated under the provisions of law as per the rule 17 and section 282 of the income tax act 1961. The provisions do not mention that communication to be presumed by placing notice on the e-portal. Thus, in the absence of the assessee being aware of the show cause notice issued by the Ld. PCI T, the assessee cannot be faulted for not responding to the queries raised by the Ld. CIT (E) as in absence of service, because it is considered that it was never conveyed to the assessee. Therefore, the revisionary action-initiated u/s 263 of the Act by the Ld. PCIT is bad in law and it would be liable to be quashed. PCIT has committed a gross error in not providing effective/reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the circumstances of the case, the Id. Principal Commissioner of Income-tax-II, Jaipur grossly erred in holding that The said order has been passed by the Assessing Officer in a routine and casual manner without verification of the issue is wholly unjustified, bad in law and deserve to be quashed. 2.2. That the Assessing Officer, National Faceless Assessment Centre has passed the assessment order after appreciating all the documents, evidences, statutory provisions of law and after thorough examination of facts and the same was just and proper, therefore the assessment order is neither erroneous nor is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. 2.3. That the Id. Principal Commissioner of Income-tax-I, Jaipur has not appreciated the facts of the matter and thus has erroneously erred in holding that the impugned assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer, National Faceless Assessment Centre suffers from non-compliance of section 56 (2) (x) of the Act and thus Rs. (Rs. is liable for income-tax. 2.4. That the impugned order passed by the learned Ide Principal Commissioner of Income-tax-I, Jaipur is based upon assumptions, presumptions, conjecture and surmises which is bad in la ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... grossly suffers from non-compliance of the mandatory provisions as prescribed u/s. 282 of the Act and the relevant notifications issued in reference thereto with regards to service of notices/ show cause notice and orders and thus the order u/s 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and entire proceedings is bad-in-law and deserves to be set-aside and quashed. In support, reliance is placed on the following case laws: 1. Maneka Gandhi vs Union of India, 1978 AIR 597 (SC). 2. Nawabkhan Abbaskhan v. The State of Gujarat, 1974 AIR 1471 (SC). 3. Ashutosh Bhargava v. PCIT in 2022 (1) TMI 586 (ITAT Jaipur Bench). 4. Dee Vee Projects Ltd. v. PCIT in 2021 (10) TMI 672 (ITAT Raipur Bench). 5. Fortune Metaliks Ltd. v. PCIT in 2022 (3) TMI 918 (ITAT Chandigarh Bench). 6. Mandeep Malli, Jalandhar vs ACIT (In Situ), Nakodar, (lTAT Amritsar Bench). 7. Parshotam Singh v. ITO, Ward-I Mansa [2016] (8) TMI 1180 (lTAT Amritsar Bench). 8. CIT v. Naveen Chander [2010] 323 ITR 49 (Punjab Haryana). 9. Munjal BCU Centre of Innovation and Entrepreneurship v. Commissioner of Income-tax (Exemptions) [2024] 160 taxmann.com 629 (Punjab Haryana). 5. Per contra, the Ld. DR supported the impugned order contending that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /NF, the email address of the assessee appellant is duly appearing, which is absent in the SCN dated 10.03.2023 issued by the Id. PCIT [PB 225]. The AR contended that the appellant's personal profile as reflected on the income tax portal also records his email address. Despite the email address being updated by the assessee appellant, the Id. PCIT did not send any notice on the email of the assessee appellant. Copy of photo print of personal details of assessee appellant as per income tax portal is filed in written paper book [APB, Pgs. 219-220]. 9. The Counsel further submitted that assesses email address was duly reflected in the income-tax returns being filed by the assessee appellant from time to time. The appellant has filed photo print of the copy of IT R filed for Assessment Year 2018-2019 [APB, Pg. 221], Assessment Year 2021 2022 [APB, Pgs. 222], Assessment Year 2022-2023 [APB, Pg 223] and Assessment Year 2023-2024 [APB, Pg. 2241] for the ready reference of the Bench which are filed on record. 10. The principles of natural justice are firmly rooted and guaranteed under the Article 14 21 of the Constitution. The major objective of these principles are that they aid to av ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ew, but nullity is the consequence of unconstitutionality and so the order of an administrative authority charged with the duty of complying with natural justice in the exercise of power before restricting the fundamental right of a citizen is void ab initio and of no legal efficacy. The duty to hear menace/es his jurisdictional exercise and any act is, in its inception, void. 14. In the case of Ashutosh Bhargava v. PCIT (Supra), ITAT Coordinate Jaipur Bench has adjudicated the similar issue and observed as under: it is mandatory to apply the principles of natural justice irrespective of the fact as to whether there is any statutory provision or not. As per facts of the present case, the assessee was not afforded opportunity much less sufficient opportunity to give the reply to the show cause notice. Therefore it is clear that the ld. Pr. CIT in a hurriedly manner without affording opportunity of hearing to the assessee, had passed impugned order by violating principles of audi alteram partem. Thus, keeping in view the principles laid down by the Coordinate Bench of Cuttak ITAT in the case of Jaidurga Minerals v/s Pr. CIT (supra) and in the case of Jagnnath Prasad Bhargva vs Lal Na ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot be upheld. 17. The Hon'ble HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA in the case of Munjal BCU Centre of Innovation and Entrepreneurship v. Commissioner of Income-tax (Exemptions) [2024] 160 taxmann.com 629 (Punjab Haryana) has held that merely uploading of information about the date of hearing on the Income Tax Portal is not an effective service of notice as per the provisions of Section 282 of the Income Tax Act. The relevant text of the judgments;' is being produced hereunder: - Method of communication of notice - Service of notice generally u/s 282(1) - as per assessee SCN was not sent on the petitioner s email or otherwise and was only reflected on the e-portal of the Department - Notice initiating proceedings under Section 12A(1)(ac)(iii) - HELD THAT:- It is essential that before any action is taken, a communication of the notice must be in terms of the provisions as enumerated hereinabove. The provisions do not mention of communication to be presumed by placing notice on the e-portal. A pragmatic view has to be adopted always in these circumstances. An individual or a Company is not expected to keep the e-portal of the Department open all the time so as to have knowledge o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... show cause notice issued by the Ld. PCI T, the assessee cannot be faulted for not responding to the queries raised by the Ld. CIT (E) as in absence of service, because it is considered that it was never conveyed to the assessee. Therefore, the revisionary action-initiated u/s 263 of the Act by the Ld. PCIT is bad in law and it would be liable to be quashed. 22. In the above view, we hold that Ld. PCIT has committed a gross error in not providing effective/reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee before passing the impugned order. Accordingly, the revisional order passed u/s 263 of the act, dated 25.03.2023, is void ab initio and stands quashed. 23. As the impugned order is quashed on legal point, there is no need to decide the other grounds of appeal on merits of the case, which are rendered academic in nature, and we do not deem it necessary to adjudicate the same. These grounds of appeal are thus left open, to be decided at an appropriate time when the need for the same arises in future and for the present, they are dismissed as infructuous. 24. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in accordance with Rule 34(4) of the Income Ta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
