Court dismisses petitions challenging notice under section 148, emphasizes need for tax appeal process

The court dismissed the petitions, finding that the notice under section 148 was issued within the prescribed time limit and that the Assessing Officer had recorded reasons before issuing the notice. The court emphasized that such disputed factual questions are not suitable for examination in a writ petition, especially at the notice stage, and should be addressed through the appropriate tax appeals process.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act was issued within the prescribed time limit.
2. Whether the Assessing Officer recorded reasons before issuing the notice under section 148.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Timely Issuance of Notice under Section 148:
The petitioner argued that the notice dated 30.03.2015 was not booked for delivery until 01.04.2015, thus exceeding the six-year limitation period for reopening the assessment for the year 2008-2009, as per section 149 of the Income Tax Act. The petitioner provided postal endorsements showing the notice was booked on 01.04.2015, suggesting a false theory by the department to overcome the limitation issue.

The department countered that the notice was handed over to the postal authority on 31.03.2015, but due to an overload, it was booked on 01.04.2015. The department cited the "book now pay later" scheme, arguing that the requirement for affixing stamps was not applicable. They provided affidavits and outward register entries showing the notice was handed over on 31.03.2015, with signatures from the postal pickup man confirming receipt.

The court referred to the precedent set in Kanubhai M. Patel (HUF) v. Hiren Bhatt, which defined the issuance of notice as the date it is handed over to the postal department. The court found sufficient prima facie evidence from the department to demonstrate the notice was handed over on 31.03.2015. Given the disputed facts, the court decided not to delve deeper at the writ petition stage, leaving it for the petitioner to challenge in further proceedings if necessary.

2. Recording of Reasons Before Issuance of Notice:
The petitioner contended that there was no evidence the Assessing Officer recorded reasons before issuing the notice, suggesting the reasons were undated and possibly recorded post-issuance.

The department presented original files showing that the Assessing Officer recorded reasons on 30.03.2015, the same day he sought approval from the Principal Commissioner. The files included the Principal Commissioner’s handwritten approval dated 30.03.2015, indicating the reasons were indeed recorded before issuing the notice.

After reviewing the original files, the court concluded that the reasons were recorded before the notice was issued, as required by law. This evidence invalidated the petitioner's claim that the reasons were recorded later.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the petitions, finding that the notice under section 148 was issued within the prescribed time limit and that the Assessing Officer had recorded reasons before issuing the notice. The court emphasized that such disputed factual questions are not suitable for examination in a writ petition, especially at the notice stage, and should be addressed through the appropriate tax appeals process.

---