9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (12) TMI 713X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... roper notice u/s 143(2) the assessment proceedings as well as the assessment order passed by the AO is bad in law and is set aside. Writ petition is allowed, and the impugned assessment order, demand notice and penalty notices are hereby quashed. The respondent authorities are directed to issue fresh notices, if deemed necessary, strictly adhering to the statutory provisions and ensuring proper service to the petitioner. - Rajarshi Bharadwaj, J. Ms. Sutapa Roychowdhury Mr. Abhijat Das Ms. Aratrika Roy for the petitioner Mr. Aryak Dutt for the UOI ORDER 1. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the assessment order dated March 12, 2024, passed by Respondent No. 1 under Sections 144 and 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, along ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es, including under Sections 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act, as well as show cause notices, were issued for the assessment year 2022-2023. Additionally, an ex-parte assessment order dated March 12, 2024, was uploaded. These were not communicated to the petitioner s registered email address but were allegedly sent to an unregistered email address named, [email protected]. 7. The ex-parte assessment order, passed under Sections 144 and 144B of the Income Tax Act, disallowed purchases aggregating to ₹7,18,52,906/- by categorizing them as non-genuine and further classified an unsecured loan amounting to ₹84,68,869/- as unexplained credit under Section 68 of the Act. Consequent to the said findings, a demand notice raising a liab ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt communications for other assessment years were sent to her registered email address, thereby creating a legitimate expectation that the same practice would be followed for the assessment year 2022-2023.Therefore, the petitioner submits that the impugned assessment order, demand notice and penalty notices be quashed, as they are arbitrary, unlawful and in breach of natural justice. 12. The petitioner further submits that the impugned order is liable to be set aside on the grounds of procedural irregularities, non-compliance with statutory provisions and lack of jurisdiction. 13. Submissions of the Learned Counsel appearing for the respondent no.2 are that the assessee, Ms. Neha Bhawsingka, herein the petitioner filed her Income Tax Return ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . On perusal of the documents brought before the Court and considering the submissions made on behalf of the parties, this Court is of the view that the impugned assessment order dated March 12, 2024 and related demand and penalty notices are vitiated due to procedural lapses and non-compliance with statutory provisions. The statutory notices under Sections 143(2) and 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, were not served to the petitioner at her registered email address, as mandated under Section 282 of the Act. Instead, these were sent to an unregistered email address, thereby depriving the petitioner of a fair opportunity to respond, violating the principles of natural justice. Furthermore, the petitioner had a legitimate expectation, arisi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... than one email in a given circumstance as in the present case. We see no wrong with the petitioner's refusal to participate in a proceeding vitiated by valid service of notice. This Court in the case of Mrs. Chitra Supekar v. ITO [Writ Petition No. 15580 of 2022, dated 15-2-2023] has held that it was imperative for the AO to have checked if there was a change of address before initiating a proceeding; and that a valid service of notice under section 148 is a condition precedent lest it would be a jurisdictional error. 18. Furthermore, the Hon ble Allahabad High Court in Grs Hotel (P) Ltd. v. Union of India reported in (2024) 417 ITR 68 held: The notice under Section 148-A(b) of the Act, 1961 has not been issued on the registered e-mail ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inalising the reassessment. (iv) The onus is on the Revenue to show that proper service of notice has been affected under Section 148 of the Act on the assessee or an agent duly empowered by him to accept notices on his behalf. In the present case, the Revenue has failed to discharge that onus. (v) The mere fact that an assessee or some other person on his behalf not duly authorised participated in the reassessment proceedings after coming to know of it will not constitute a waiver of the requirement of effecting proper Action of notice on the assessee under Section 148 of the (vi) Reassessment proceedings finalised by an assessing officer without effecting proper service of notice on the assessee under Section 148(1) of the Act are invalid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
