The Bombay High Court allowed the petition seeking quashing of the show cause notice as it was served on the secondary email id registered with PAN instead of the registered primary email id or updated email id filed with the last Return of Income.
A division bench of this Court comprising Hon’ble Justice Dheeraj Singh Thakur and Kamal Khata observed that a secondary email address has to be used as an alternative or in such circumstances when the authority is unable to effect service of any communication on the primary address.
Brief Facts:
In this case, the Petitioner challenged the reassessment notice dated 28th March 2021, for the Assessment Years (AY) 2015-16, 2016-17, and 2017-18 issued under section (u/s) 148 of the Act, the show cause notice for proposed variation in the draft assessment order dated 25th March 2022 and assessment order u/s 144B read with (r.w) s.144, a notice of demand u/s 156. The Petitioner further apprehended the passing of a Penalty Notice u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The issue raised for consideration in this petition was-
- Whether subsequent proceedings initiated by the revenue authorities for non-compliance of notice u/s 148 under the Income Tax Act would be vitiated on account of notice u/s 148 of the Act being served on the secondary email id registered with PAN instead of the registered primary email id or updated email id filed with the last Return of Income.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the respondents ought not to have issued Notice u/s. 148 on the email-id mentioned in the Return of Income for AY 2013- 14 but on the last Return of Income filed by the Petitioner. He further submitted that the notice under section 148, dated 28th March 2022, contravened sections 282 and 282A of the Act r.w. Rules 127 and 127A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 r.w. notifications issued by the CBDT and consequently not in accordance with the law.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The learned Counsel for the Respondent submitted that the notice u/s 148 was issued in accordance with law as the Petitioner had not denied the email id and that it was registered with the PAN database. He further submitted that the assessee had not filed its return of income for AY 2008-09, 2015-16 to 2018-19, and therefore, the notice was issued to the email address mentioned in the return filed for AY 2013-14.
Observations of the Court:
This Court observed that it is common knowledge that a secondary email address has to be used as an alternative or in such circumstances when the authority is unable to effect the service of any communication on the primary address. There is no prudence in issuing an email to the secondary email address. In the view of this Court, the AO ought to have sent the notice u/s 148 to both the primary address and the email address mentioned in the last Return of Income filed to pre-empt a jurisdictional error on account of valid service; there was neither any cost to it or any prejudice to any party for sending it on more than one email in a given circumstance as in the present case.
Due to the above observations, the Court quashed and set aside the notice dated 28th March 2022, and all consequential proceedings, including the show cause notice for proposed variation dated 25th March 2022 and assessment order u/s 144B r.w s.144.
The decision of the Court:
The Bombay High Court quashed the notice dated 28th March 2022, and all consequential proceedings, including the show cause notice for proposed variation dated 25th March 2022 and assessment order u/s 144B r.w s.144.
Case Title: Lok Developers versus Deputy Commissioner of Income tax
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Dheeraj Singh Thakur and Kamal Khata
Case no.: WRIT PETITION NO. 3037 OF 2022
Advocate for the Petitioner: - Mr. Rahul K. Hakani i/by Ms. Niyati K. Hakani
Advocate for the Respondents: - Mr. Akhileshwar Sharma a/w. Ms. Shilpa Goel
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
