Jharkhand High Court

M/S General Traders vs Principal Chief Commissioner Of Income ... on 13 November, 2025

Author: Rajesh Shankar

Bench: Rajesh Shankar

                                     Neutral Citation No. 2025:JHHC:33870-DB




 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                 W.P. (T) No. 1153 of 2022
                         WITH
                 W.P. (T) No. 1140 of 2022
M/s General Traders, a Partnership firm, having its Office at Qt. No.
144/2/3, Road No. 04, Bagbera Colony, Tatanagar, P.O. Bagbera, P.S.
Bagbera, Town Jamshedpur, District East Singhbhum-831 002, through
its Partner Prafulla Kumar Mishra, Aged about 48 years, Son of Shri
Uma Kant Mishra, Resident of Qt. No. 144/2/3, Road No. 04, Bagbera
Colony, Tatanagar, P.O. Bagbera, P.S. Bagbera, Town Jamshedpur,
District East Singhbhum-831 002.
                                             ....          Petitioner(s)
                         Versus
1. Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, having its Office at
    Central Revenue Building, 5A, Main Road, Ranchi, P.O. G.P.O.,
    P.S. Kotwali, Ranchi-834 001.
2. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Jamshedpur,
    having his office at 47, C.H. Area, Town Jamshedpur,
    P.O.Jamshedpur, P.S. Jamshedpur, District East Singhbhum-
    831001.
3. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi, Income Tax
    Department, Ministry of Finance, North Block, P.O.&P.S.-North
    Block, New Delhi-110001 through Additional/Joint/Deputy/
    Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax.
                                                   ...   Respondents
                         ---------
CORAM:              HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
             HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR
                         ---------
For the Petitioners:     Mr. Biren Poddar, Sr. Advocate
                         Mr. Piyush Poddar, Advocate
                         Mr. Manav Poddar, Advocate
                         Mr. Deepak Kumar Sinha, Advocate
                         Mr. Mahendra Chowdhary, Advocate
For the Respondents:     Mr. Kumar Vaibhav, Sr. S.C.
                         Mr. Durgesh Agarwal, A.C. to Sr. S.C.
                         ---------
Reserved on: 11.11.2025                Pronounced on: 13/11/2025
Per Tarlok Singh Chauhan, C.J.

Neutral Citation No. 2025:JHHC:33870-DB

1. Since similar facts and issues are involved in both the writ

petitions, they are being heard together and disposed of by this common

judgment.

2. For the sake of convenience, the substantial reliefs as sought for

in W.P. (T) No. 1153 of 2022 are being reproduced herein-below:-

(a) For a declaration that the entire proceeding allegedly

initiated by the Respondent Department in pursuance of

purported notice issued under Section 148 of the

Income Tax Act, 1961 including the reassessment

proceedings under Section 147 of the Act, against the

Petitioner for the Assessment Year 2016-17 is null and

void-ab-initio, in view of the fact that none of purported

notice issued under Section 148 dated 31.03.2021 as

well as Notices dated 28.09.2021 and 13.01.2022 issued

under Section 142(1) of the Act, were ever been served

upon the Petitioner in order to comply the same.

(b) For quashing and setting aside the Notice dated

10.02.2022 (Annexure-2 Series) issued by the

Respondent No. 3 to the Petitioner sent through Speed

Post, received by the Petitioner on 12.02.2022, whereby

the Petitioner for the first time came to know about the

issuance of aforesaid Notices under Section 148 of the

Act as well as under Section 142(1) of the Act.

Neutral Citation No. 2025:JHHC:33870-DB

Order passed under Section 147 read with Section 144

read with Section 144B of the Income-Tax Act, 1961,

passed on 29.3.2022 on total income of

Rs.1,32,21,110/-and its Demand Notice of

Rs.55,69,827/- dated 30.03.2022 (Annexure-10 & 10/1)

by the Respondent No. 3 and the ex parte Penalty

Orders under Section 271(1)(c) dated 20.09.2022 with

its Demand Notice of Rs.24,35,454/- (Annexure-11 &

11/1) and ex parte Penalty Order under Section

271(1)(b) dated 13.09.2022 with its Demand Notice of

Rs.30,000/- (Annexure-12 & 12/1) upon the Petitioner,

passed by the Respondent No.2, all for the said

assessment year 2016-17.

Case of the petitioner

3. The case of the petitioner is that it is a partnership firm engaged

in the business of road construction, mining and crushing, etc. and had

filed its return of income for the financial year 2015-16 relating to the

assessment year 2016-17 on 17.10.2016 showing its gross total income

of Rs.29,66,606/- and claimed refund to the tune of Rs.1,42,310/- after

adjusting the TDS amount of Rs.10,58,997/-.

4. After lapse of more than six years, the petitioner has been served

with a Notice dated 10.02.2022 issued by the respondent no.3 sent to

the petitioner through speed post, received by the petitioner on

Neutral Citation No. 2025:JHHC:33870-DB

12.02.2022, wherein the petitioner was intimated that Respondent No.3

has not received any response from the petitioner for the assessment

year 2016-17 in respect of certain notices sent to it. It is also mentioned

in the said Notice that copies of such notices are attached, but no such

attachment was found by the petitioner. However, a Notice dated

27.01.2022 issued under Section 142(1) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961

(for brevity hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') was attached along with

ANNEXURE, wherein the following, inter alia, is mentioned:-

     SN Notice/Letter   DIN                         Compliance     Complied
        dated                                       Date           or not
     1. 148             ITBA/AST/S/148/2020-        30.04.2021     No
        31.03.2021      21/1032078421(1)                           Response
     2. 142(1)          ITBA/AST/F/142(1)/2021-     13.10.2021     No
        28.09.2021      22/1035963620(1)                           Response
     3. 142(1)          ITBA/AST/F/142(1)/2021-     21.01.2022     No
        13.01.2022      22/1038702042(1)                           Response

5. It is further averred that since the year 2019 the petitioner has

been making all the correspondences with the Respondent-Department

on its e-mail ID i.e. [email protected] and the Respondent

Department has also used the said e-mail ID of the petitioner for

sending all the information.

6. According to the petitioner, none of the notices has been served

upon the petitioner by the Respondent Department on the aforesaid e-

mail ID nor the same was sent through the speed post and the entire

proceedings initiated by the Respondent Department was in pursuant to

the purported notice issued under Section 148 of the Act including the

reassessment proceedings under Section 147 of the Act against the

petitioner for the assessment year 2015-16 are null and void ab initio.

Neutral Citation No. 2025:JHHC:33870-DB

7. It is reiterated that none of the purported notices issued under

Section 148 dated 31.03.2021 as well as Notices dated 28.09.2021 and

13.01.2022 issued under Section 142(1) of the Act, were ever been

served upon the petitioner in order to comply the same. It is only

through Notice dated 11.02.2022 sent through speed post which was

received by the petitioner on 12.02.2022, whereby the petitioner for the

first time came to know about the issuance of aforesaid Notices under

Section 148 of the Act as well as under Section 142(1) of the Act and

immediately thereafter, approached the Court by filing the writ

petitions.

8. During the pendency of the writ petitions, ex parte assessment

order under Section 147 read with Section 144 read with Section 144B

of the Act was passed by the respondent no.3 on 29.03.2022 on total

income of Rs.1,32,21,110/- raising a tax demand of Rs.55,69,827/- and

thereafter penalty orders under Sections 271(1)(c) dated 20.09.2022

imposing a penalty of Rs.24,35,454/- and a penalty order under Section

271(1)(b) dated 13.09.2022 imposing a penalty of Rs.30,000/- upon the

petitioner were passed by the respondent no.2 for the year under

consideration i.e. for the assessment year 2016-17, constraining the

petitioner to amend the writ petitions and claiming the reliefs as quoted

above.

Counter affidavit of respondent no.1

9. The respondent no.1 filed a counter affidavit wherein it has been

averred that from the online records it is revealed that Notice under

Neutral Citation No. 2025:JHHC:33870-DB

Section 148 of the Act was issued by the Assessing Officer to the

petitioner on 31.03.2021 through departmental online system popularly

known as Income Tax Business Application (hereinafter referred to as

'ITBA'). The Notice was immediately reflected in the e-proceeding

account of the assessee-petitioner. As per online record Notice under

Section 148 dated 31.03.2021 was served on the assessee-petitioner on

31.03.2021 through e-proceeding account which is still active.

Therefore, the contention of the assessee-petitioner that the Notice

under Section 148 was not served on it is factually incorrect.

10. Similarly, it appears from the online record that Notice under

Section 142(1) was issued by the Assessing Officer to the assessee-

petitioner on 28.09.2021 through departmental online ITBA system.

The Notice was immediately reflected in the e-proceeding account of

the assessee-petitioner. Therefore, again the contention of the assessee-

petitioner that the Notice under Section 142(1) was not served on it is

also not correct.

11. It has been mentioned that assessee-petitioner that the assessee-

petitioner has filed its return of income till assessment year 2018-19

and the e-mail ID mentioned was as [email protected] in its

each returns of income. At the same time, it is also mentioned that this

e-mail id is still linked with its e-proceeding account, as the assessee

has not changed it as yet. Accordingly, all the Notices issued to the

assessee-petitioner are legal and valid and as per law.

Rejoinder of the petitioner

Neutral Citation No. 2025:JHHC:33870-DB

12. The petitioner has filed rejoinder reiterating the averments made

in the petition and it has further been mentioned that though the

petitioner had filed the returns for the assessment year 2018-19 on

30.03.2019 mentioning the e-mail ID as [email protected].

However, after filing of the aforesaid returns for the assessment year,

the petitioner came to know that the said e-mail ID which was created

by the petitioner from Satyam Company, became inactive due to the

fact that the said Satyam Company itself was closed and amalgamated

with another company. As such, the petitioner furnished and uploaded

another e-mail ID being [email protected] on 22.07.2020

for the purpose of communication, in his profile at the IT Portal and

removed the aforesaid earlier e-mail ID being [email protected]

from the IT portal and immediately thereafter on the same day i.e.

22.07.2020 at 1:54 p.m., the petitioner received a confirmatory e-mail

from the Income Tax Department's e-mail ID being

[email protected] at the petitioner's

aforesaid new e-mail ID [email protected] confirming

therein that the profile details of the petitioner has been updated

successfully and the transaction id is 8705745824.

13. It was pursuant to the aforesaid change of e-mail ID for

communication to the petitioner that the Income Tax Department

thereafter started continuously sending the communications to the

petitioner at the newly updated profile and some of such

communications received from the Income Tax Department were on

Neutral Citation No. 2025:JHHC:33870-DB

22.11.2020, 26.11.2020 and 27.11.2020. All these communications

were received by the petitioner from the Income Tax Department at its

new e-mail ID before 31.03.2021 i.e. the date alleged service of notice

under Section 148 of the Act at the petitioner's old closed and inactive

e-mail being [email protected]. Even immediately after

31.03.2021 (alleged date of service of notice under Section 148), the

petitioner received two communications from the IT Department on

09.04.2021 at his new updated profile e-mail ID

[email protected] for the assessment year 2016-17, the

subject matters of these writ petitions, attaching therewith the orders

relating to rectification under Section 154 of the Act for the said

assessment year. Therefore, the contention of the IT Department of the

respondents that the said e-mail ID [email protected] is still

active is not correct and rather misleading.

Findings of the Court

14. Heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the

materials placed on record.

15. In order to appreciate the controversial questions, it shall first be

apt to reproduce Rule 127 of the Income-Tax Rules, 1962 which

provides for service of notice, summons etc which reads as under:-

"127. Service of notice, summons, requisition, order and

other communication.

(1) For the purposes of sub-section (1) of section 282, the

addresses (including the address for electronic mail or

electronic mail message) to which a notice or summons or

Neutral Citation No. 2025:JHHC:33870-DB

requisition or order or any other communication under the Act

(hereafter in this rule referred to as "communication") may be

delivered or transmitted shall be as per sub-rule (2).

(2) The addresses referred to in sub-rule (1) shall be -

(a) for communications delivered or transmitted in

the manner provided in clause (a) or clause (b) of sub-

section (1) of section 282-

(i) address available in the PAN database of

the addressee; or

(ii) the address available in the income-tax

return to which the communication relates; or

(iii) the address available in the last income-

tax return furnished by the addressee; or

(iv) in the case of addressee being a company,

address of registered office as available on the

website of Ministry of Corporate Affairs:

Provided that the communication shall not be delivered

or transmitted to the address mentioned in item (i) to

(iv) where the addressee furnishes in writing any other

address for the purposes of communication to the

income-tax authority or any person authorised by such

authority issuing the communication:

Provided further ... ... ..."

16. It shall also be apt to reproduce Section 148 of the Act which

reads as under:-

Neutral Citation No. 2025:JHHC:33870-DB

"148. Issue of notice where income has escaped assessment.

Before making the assessment, reassessment or recomputation

under section 147, and subject to the provisions of section

148A, the Assessing Officer shall serve on the assessee a

notice, along with a copy of the order passed, if required,

under clause (d) of section 148A, requiring him to furnish

within such period, as may be specified in such notice, a return

of his income or the income of any other person in respect of

which he is assessable under this Act during the previous year

corresponding to the relevant assessment year, in the

prescribed form and verified in the prescribed manner and

setting forth such other particulars as may be prescribed; and

the provisions of this Act shall, so far as may be, apply

accordingly as if such return were a return required to be

furnished under section 139:

Provided that no notice under this section shall be

issued unless there is information with the Assessing Officer

which suggests that the income chargeable to tax has escaped

assessment in the case of the assessee for the relevant

assessment year and the Assessing Officer has obtained prior

approval of the specified authority to issue such notice:

Provided further that no such approval shall be required

where the Assessing Officer, with the prior approval of the

specified authority, has passed an order under clause (d) of

section 148A to the effect that it is a fit case to issue a notice

under this section.

Neutral Citation No. 2025:JHHC:33870-DB

Explanation 1.--For the purposes of this section and section

148A, the information with the Assessing Officer which

suggests that the income chargeable to tax has escaped

assessment means,--

(i) any information in the case of the assessee for the

relevant assessment year in accordance with the risk

management strategy formulated by the Board from time

to time;

(ii) any audit objection to the effect that the assessment

in the case of the assessee for the relevant assessment

year has not been made in accordance with the

provisions of this Act; or

(iii) any information received under an agreement

referred to in section 90 or section 90A of the Act; or

(iv) any information made available to the Assessing

Officer under the scheme notified under section 135A;

(v) any information which requires action in

consequence of the order of a Tribunal or a Court.

Explanation 2.--For the purposes of this section, where,--

(i) a search is initiated under section 132 or books of

account, other documents or any assets are

requisitioned under section 132A, on or after the 1st day

of April, 2021, in the case of the assessee; or

Neutral Citation No. 2025:JHHC:33870-DB

(ii) a survey is conducted under section 133A, other

than under sub-section (2A) of that section, on or after

the 1st day of April, 2021, in the case of the assessee; or

(iii) the Assessing Officer is satisfied, with the prior

approval of the Principal Commissioner or

Commissioner, that any money, bullion, jewellery or

other valuable article or thing, seized or requisitioned

under section 132 or section 132A in case of any other

person on or after the 1st day of April, 2021, belongs to

the assessee; or

(iv) the Assessing Officer is satisfied, with the prior

approval of Principal Commissioner or Commissioner,

that any books of account or documents, seized or

requisitioned under section 132 or section 132A in case

of any other person on or after the 1st day of April,

2021, pertains or pertain to, or any information

contained therein, relate to, the assessee, the Assessing

Officer shall be deemed to have information which

suggests that the income chargeable to tax has escaped

assessment in the case of the assessee where the search

is initiated or books of account, other documents or any

assets are requisitioned or survey is conducted in the

case of the assessee or money, bullion, jewellery or

other valuable article or thing or books of account or

documents are seized or requisitioned in case of any

other person.

Neutral Citation No. 2025:JHHC:33870-DB

Explanation 3.--For the purposes of this section, specified

authority means the specified authority referred to in section

151."

17. Section 282 of the Act reads as under:-

"Service of notice generally.

282. (1) The service of a notice or summon or requisition or

order or any other communication under this Act (hereafter in

this section referred to as "communication") may be made by

delivering or transmitting a copy thereof, to the person therein

named,-

(a) by post or by such courier services as may be

approved by the Board; or

(b) in such manner as provided under the Code of

Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) for the purposes of

service of summons; or

(c) in the form of any electronic record as provided

in Chapter IV of the Information Technology Act, 2000

(21 of 2000); or

(d) by any other means of transmission of documents

as provided by rules made by the Board in this behalf.

(2) The Board may make rules providing for the addresses

(including the address for electronic mail or electronic mail

message) to which the communication referred to in sub-

section (1) may be delivered or transmitted to the person

therein named.

Neutral Citation No. 2025:JHHC:33870-DB

Explanation. - For the purposes of this section, the expressions

"electronic mail" and "electronic mail message" shall have the

meanings as assigned to them in Explanation to section 66-A of

the Information Technology Act, 2000 (21 of 2000)."

18. On perusal of the documents brought on records before this Court

and considering the submissions made on behalf of the parties, this

Court is of the view that the assessment orders impugned herein and the

belated Demand and Penalty Notices are vitiated due to procedural

lapses and non-compliance with statutory provisions. The statutory

notice under Section 142 of the Act was not served upon the petitioner

at its registered e-mail address as mandated under Section 282 of the

Act. Instead, this was sent on an e-mail address that was no longer

operative, thereby violating the principles of natural justice.

19. Furthermore, the petitioner had a legitimate expectation arising

out of consistent past practice that all communications will be sent to its

registered e-mail address after the same has been successfully updated

by transaction ID 8705745824 dated 22.07.2020 at 1:54 p.m. The

failure to adhere to this established protocol and absence of proper

service of notices invalidates the subsequent assessment proceedings

and ex parte orders passed by the respondents.

20. Apart from the above, it is imperative for the Assessing Officer

to have checked if any change in address before initiating a proceeding

and that a valid service of notice under Section 148, given the fact that

the valid service of notice under Section 148 is a condition precedent,

lest it would be a jurisdictional error.

Neutral Citation No. 2025:JHHC:33870-DB

21. By now, it is well settled that under Section 148 of the Act, the

issue of notice to the assessee and service of such notice upon the

assessee are jurisdictional requirements that must be mandatorily

complied with. They are not procedural requirements.

22. Equally it is settled proposition that for the Assessing Officer to

exercise jurisdiction to reopen an assessment notice under Section

148(1) has to be mandatorily issued to the assessee. Further, the

Assessing Officer cannot complete the reassessment without service of

the notice so issued upon the assessee in accordance with Section

282(1) of the Act read with Order V Rule 12 and Order III Rule 6 of the

Code of Civil Procedure.

23. The onus is on the Revenue to show that proper service of notice

has been effected 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.

24. The learned counsel for the respondents-Revenue would,

however, argue that the respondents had, in fact, served the notice on

the assessee-petitioner on 31.03.2021 through e-proceeding account by

placing the same on the e-Portal and, therefore, presumption can be

drawn that the petitioner was having knowledge of the notice/reminder

which was placed on the e-Portal and there was no requirement of

serving the notice personally through e-Portal as permitted under

Section 144B(6) of the Act pertaining to faceless assessment.

Neutral Citation No. 2025:JHHC:33870-DB

25. However, even this contention is without merit, firstly for the

reason that that the provision of Section 144B(6) which was relied upon

by the respondents was itself introduced by the legislation subsequent

to the proceedings on 29.03.2022 and even otherwise, admittedly, the

petitioner has been issued impugned notices after a lapse of more than

six years and the petitioner cannot be expected to keep the e-Portal of

the Department open all the time so as to have acknowledge of what the

Department is supposed to be doing with regard to the submissions of

forms, etc. In coming to such conclusion, we have drawn support by the

Division Bench judgment of Punjab & Haryana High Court in Munjal

BCU Centre of Innovation and Entrepreneurship v. Commissioner

of Income Tax ( (Exemptions), [2024] 160 taxmann.com 629, wherein

the Court after reproducing the provision of Section 282 of the Income-

Tax Act, 1961 and Rule 127(1) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962

observed as under:-

"8. In view of the above, 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 of what the

Neutral Citation No. 2025:JHHC:33870-DB

Department is supposed to be doing with regard to the

submissions of forms etc.. The principles of natural

justice are inherent in the income tax provisions and

the same are required to be necessarily followed.

9. Having noticed as above, this Court is of the firm

view that the petitioner has not been given sufficient

opportunity to put up his pleas with regard to the

proceedings under Section 12A(1)(ac) (iii) of the Act of

1961 and as he was not served with any notice.

Therefore, he would be entitled to file his reply and the

Department would of course be entitled to examine the

same and pass a fresh order thereafter.

10. In view of the above, Writ Petition is allowed and

the order dated 16.01.2023 (Annexure P-5) is quashed

and set aside. The Department would provide an

opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and they will

also allow the petitioner to appear personally for the

purpose and pass a speaking order independent of the

order passed earlier by them on 16.01.2023. The same

shall be done expeditiously provided the petitioner file

his reply within a period of three weeks."

26. The aforesaid judgment in Munjal BCU Centre of Innovation

and Entrepreneurship was thereafter followed by the High Court of

Neutral Citation No. 2025:JHHC:33870-DB

Chhattisgarh in Nitesh Kumar Goyal v. Deputy Commissioner of

Income-tax, [2025] 173 taxmann.com 979.

27. In somewhat identical situation as obtaining in the instant case

where the e-mail address had been changed by the assessee and

thereafter the assessee continuously used the new profile in its latest

income-tax returns and the issue of service of notice came up before a

Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Grs Hotel (P.) Ltd. v.

Union of India, [2024] 160 taxmann.com 125, wherein it was observed

as under:-

"20. As far as the present case is concerned, it has been the

consistent stand by the petitioner that he has used or made

available the e-mail ID: [email protected] for e-filing of

his income-tax return even since the Assessment Year 2020-21

and the same has been used by him even for filing of the latest

income-tax return for the Assessment Year 2022-23. Further,

the said email ID has been also mentioned by him in the

income-tax return and the same is relatable to PAN data base

and also mentioned in the master data of the petitioner's

Company as available from the official website of the Ministry

of Corporate Affairs at the relevant time. Therefore, taking a

holistic view of the matter, it has to be held that the e-mail ID:

[email protected] is the registered e-mail address of the

petitioner company and it is the e-mail ID, which has been

made available to the Authority by the assessee.

Neutral Citation No. 2025:JHHC:33870-DB

21. Further, there is another aspect of the matter, in as much as

this Court finds that a notice issued under section 148A(b) of

the Act, 1961 to the registered email ID of the assessee is not

an empty formality as the issuance of the notice and service of

such notice upon the assessee are jurisdictional requirement

that must be mandatorily complied with as it provides an

opportunity to the addressee to satisfy the Assessing Officer

with his reply, even before the issuance of the notice under

section 148 of the Act, 1961. The said right of the assessee has

to be understood in the context that before the issuance of the

notice under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, the Assessing

Officer is enjoined upon as per section 148A (d) of the Act,

1961 to decide, on the basis of material available on record

including reply of assessee, whether or not it is a fit case to

issue a notice under section 148 of the Act, 1961, by passing an

order.

22. In the present case, the notice under section 148A(b) of the

Act, 1961 has not been issued on the registered email address

of the petitioner's company. However, as pointed out by the

learned Counsel for the respondents that the said point was not

raised by the petitioner in the re-assessment proceedings

presently pending before the Assessing Officer and in a way

has contended that the said issue stands waived by the

petitioner. In this context, it would be profitable to quote the

conclusion of a judgment passed by the Delhi High Court,

wherein the Division Bench had examined an Appeal from the

Neutral Citation No. 2025:JHHC:33870-DB

ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal), which was challenged

on similar grounds. The Division Bench after recording the

contention of the parties, not only dismissed the appeal of the

department, but also held in the said judgment CIT v Chetan

Gupta [2015] 62 taxmann.com 249/[2016] 382 ITR 613

(Delhi), inter-alia that

"46. To summarize the conclusions:

(i) Under Section 148 of the Act, the issue of notice

to the Assessee and service of such notice upon

the Assessee are jurisdictional requirements that

must be mandatorily complied with. They are not

mere procedural requirements.

(ii) For the AO to exercise jurisdiction to reopen an

assessment, notice under section 148 (1) has to

be mandatorily issued to the Assessee. Further

the AO cannot complete the reassessment without

service of the notice so issued upon the Assessee

in accordance with Section 282 (1) of the Act

read with Order V Rule 12 CPC and Order III

Rule 6 CPC.

(iii) Although there is change in the scheme of

Sections 147, 148 and 149 of the Act from the

corresponding Section 34 of the 1922 Act, the

legal requirement of service of notice upon the

Assessee in terms of Section 148 read with

Section 282 (1) and Section 153 (2) of the Act is a

Neutral Citation No. 2025:JHHC:33870-DB

jurisdictional pre-condition to finalizing the

reassessment.

(iv) The onus is on the Revenue to show that proper

service of notice has been effected 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

service of notice on the Assessee under section

148 of the Act.

(vi) Reassessment proceedings finalised by an AO

without effecting proper service of notice on the

Assessee under section 148 (1) of the Act are

invalid and liable to be quashed.

(vii) Section 292 BB is prospective. In any event the

Assessee in the present case, having raised an

objection regarding the failure by the Revenue to

effect service of notice upon him, the main part of

Section 292 BB is not attracted"

23. To the same effect is the judgment of the Bombay High

Court in Mrs. Chitra Supekur 170 [2023] 149 taxmann.com

Neutral Citation No. 2025:JHHC:33870-DB

26/292 Taxman 511/453 ITR 530 [Writ Petition No. 15580 of

2022, dated 15-2-2023] wherein the Division Bench concluded

as herein under-

"7. We have heard both counsels at length and have

perused the proceedings we agree with the view taken by

the Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Eshaan

Holding (P) Ltd 5 upholding the view of the ITAT that if

there is no valid service of notice under section 148, the

reassessment proceedings are null and void as also the

decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the

case of CIT v. Avtar Singh 6 which held that service of

notice under section 148 is a condition precedent for

making reassessment or re-computation under section

147 of the Act.

8. In our view, before issuing the notice under section

148A (b) it was imperative for the AO to have checked if

there was a change of address. A condition precedent

for any proceeding including a proceeding u/s. 148A, is

a valid service of notice, lest it would be a jurisdictional

error. With regard to, the first notice dated 20th March

2022, it is the case of the petitioner that they had not

received any notice dated 20th March 2022 and the

revenue contended that it was served through speed post

at the last known address. It is evident that though the

respondents had the new address of the petitioner as

evinced from the ITR filed on 10th January 2021, the

Neutral Citation No. 2025:JHHC:33870-DB

respondents chose to send the notice to their old

address. We also find no averment or proof of the

service of notice dated 20th March 2022 on the

petitioner in respondent's affidavit in reply dated 14th

November 2022. The cascading effect of non-service

was the petitioner did not get an opportunity to respond

to the notice. Consequently, the notice dated 20th March

2022 and the proceedings thereafter are void. Apropos

section 151(ii) of the Act the sanction from the PCCIT

ought to have been taken when order was sought to be

passed beyond the period of three years ie beyond 31st

March 2022 on 5th April 2022. Consequently, the notice

dated 20th March 2022 and order dated 5th April 2022

deserves to be set aside on account of jurisdictional

error Le for want of service and consequently, for non-

compliance with the provisions of the Act."

24. Further in the judgment passed in Lok Developers v. Dy

CIT [2023] 149 taxmann.com 93/455 ITR 399 [Writ Petition

No 1983 of 2022, dated 15-2-2023] wherein the issue before

the Bombay High Court was as to whether subsequent

proceedings initiated by the revenue authorities for non-

compliance of notice under section 148 under the Act would be

vitiated on account of notice under section 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

Neutral Citation No. 2025:JHHC:33870-DB

with the last return of income. The Division Bench, after

hearing both the parties, concluded inter- alia:

"..... In our view the AO clearly erred in issuing a 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 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.

This Court in the case of Mrs. Chitra Supekar v. ITO in

Writ Petition No. 15580 of 2022 has held that it was

imperative for the AO to have checked if there was

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."