The High Court of Calcutta, while allowing an appeal filed against the order dated 19th December 2022 in a writ petition where the appellant had challenged the assessment passed under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, held that if it is established that the assessee has not been served with the copy of the assessment order, it goes without saying that the assessee is entitled to an opportunity to put forth their matter.
Brief Facts:
The assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the appeal is pending. In the appeal memorandum, a specific ground has been raised by the assessee stating that no notice under Section 147 or Section 148 was received by the assessee. Similarly, no assessment order dated 2nd December 2016 was served on the assessee by the I.T.O., no notice under Section 143(2) and 143(1) of the Act was served on the assessee and no notice under Section 271 (1)(c) was served on the assessee and as the assessment order has not been served, the imposition of penalty under Section 271(i)(c) is wrong.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent submitted that the penalty demand notice was served through e-mail on 23rd June 2017 as well as the earlier notice.
Observations of the court:
The court noted that if it is established that the assessee has not been served with the copy of the assessment order, it goes without saying that the assessee is entitled to an opportunity to put forth their matter. Notice under Section 148 was issued by ITO and the service of the said notice was made by affixation by the departmental inspector on 31st March 2016.
The Court observed that the order passed under Section 148 and the consequential proceedings are set aside and the matter is restored to the file of the assessing officer.
The decision of the Court:
The Calcutta High Court, allowing the appeal, held that the order passed under Section 148 and the consequential proceedings are set aside and the matter is restored to the file of the assessing officer.
Case Title: M/s. Poddar Real Estates Pvt. Ltd. vs Income Tax Officer & Ors.
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice T.S. Sivagnanam and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya
Case No.: M.A.T. 37 of 2023
Advocate for the Appellant: Mr. Soumitra Chowdhury
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. Vipul Kundalia
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
