TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court Emphasizes Prompt Communication in Notice Issuance Under Tax Law</h1> <h3>INGENICO INTERNATIONAL INDIA PVT. LTD. Versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE 10 (1) & ORS.</h3> The High Court addressed the lack of clarity regarding the issuance of a notice under Section 241A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Despite challenges posed ... Refund u/s 241A - whether notice has been issued by the Assessing Officer u/s 241A - HELD THAT:- We are informed that respondent no. 4 is responsible for ordering payment of the refund amount. List the matter on 18.03.2021. In case there is no clarity, on this issue on the next date of hearing, we will assume that there is no order passed under Section 241 A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Furthermore, the concerned officer will join the proceedings on the next date of hearing. Issues:1. Clarity on whether notice issued by the Assessing Officer under Section 241A of Income Tax Act, 1961.2. Impact of faceless system on communication between the Assessing Officer and relevant parties.3. Responsibility of respondent no. 4 in ordering payment of refund amount.Analysis:1. The High Court noted the lack of clarity regarding the issuance of a notice under Section 241A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 despite three previous orders. The Court referred to an order dated 19.02.2021, which highlighted the need for the Revenue to inform the Court about the issuance of the notice within a specified timeframe. Failure to provide this information would result in a direction for refund without further delay.2. The Court acknowledged the challenges posed by the implementation of a faceless system, as mentioned by Mr. Kunal Sharma representing the Revenue. The faceless system appeared to have hindered the timely communication of necessary information from the Assessing Officer to respondent no. 4, who holds the responsibility for ordering the payment of the refund amount. This issue raised concerns about the efficiency and effectiveness of the communication process under the new system.3. In light of the uncertainties surrounding the issuance of the notice under Section 241A, the Court scheduled the matter for further hearing on 18.03.2021. The Court emphasized the importance of achieving clarity on this issue during the next hearing. Additionally, the Court directed the concerned officer to participate in the proceedings on the scheduled date to facilitate a comprehensive understanding of the situation and to ensure appropriate actions are taken based on the outcome of the hearing.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
