Court quashes tax order, grants time to non-resident petitioner for fair reconsideration.

The Court quashed the impugned order under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and directed the Assessing Officer to reconsider the case. The petitioner, a non-resident Indian, was granted two weeks to respond to the notice under Section 148A(b), emphasizing the importance of granting adequate time for non-resident individuals. The Court focused on the violation of natural justice principles, ordering a fresh reasoned decision within eight weeks and allowing supplementary notices if necessary. The decision did not delve into the merits of the case, leaving all parties' rights and contentions open.

---

---

Issues:
Challenging order under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and Notice issued under Section 148 for assessment year 2015-16.

Detailed Analysis:

1. The petitioner challenged the order issued under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the Notice issued under Section 148 for the assessment year 2015-16, alleging a violation of natural justice principles. The petitioner, a non-resident Indian employed in the United States, contended that inadequate time was provided to respond to the notice due to non-availability in India.

2. The petitioner's counsel argued that an email seeking an extension of time for responding to the notice was sent on 27th March, 2022, highlighting the petitioner's absence from India. The Assessing Officer closed the e-portal for replies on 26th March, 2022, before the deadline of 1st April, 2022, based on the notice date.

3. Referring to a previous judgment, the petitioner emphasized that the Assessing Officer should consider extension requests, especially for non-resident individuals, granting up to 30 days for a response. The petitioner's non-resident status was supported by profile records on the e-portal, challenging the respondent's claim of notice receipt on 21st March, 2022.

4. The respondent argued against the petition's maintainability, citing notice receipt on 21st March, 2022, and the non-accessibility of the petitioner's email seeking an extension before passing the impugned order. The respondent's practice of reviewing uploaded materials on the e-portal for orders under Section 148A(d) was highlighted.

5. The Court noted discrepancies in the respondent's arguments regarding the notice receipt dates and emphasized the petitioner's non-resident status during the relevant period. It directed the Assessing Officer to reconsider the case, granting the petitioner two weeks to respond to the notice under Section 148A(b) and issuing a fresh reasoned order within eight weeks, allowing supplementary notices if needed.

6. The Court's decision to quash the impugned order and remand the matter back to the Assessing Officer was based on the violation of natural justice principles, ensuring the petitioner's right to adequate time for a response. The judgment did not comment on the merits of the case, leaving all parties' rights and contentions open.

---