Court emphasizes jurisdictional errors in setting aside orders and notices, stressing notice service and statutory compliance.

The court set aside the impugned orders and notices due to jurisdictional errors, emphasizing the necessity of valid notice service and compliance with statutory provisions. The court granted the respondents the opportunity to conduct a proper assessment after ensuring due process and compliance with the law.

---

---

Issues:
1. Validity of notice dated 20th March 2022 issued under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act for AY 2018-19.
2. Validity of the order dated 5th April 2022 issued under Section 148A(d) of the Act.
3. Reopening notice dated 13th April 2022 issued under Section 148 of the Act for AY 2018-19.

Analysis:

1. The petitioner, a housewife, did not file her income tax return for AY 2018-19 due to income below taxable limits. The notice dated 20th March 2022 was challenged on the grounds of not receiving it at the updated address, leading to a lack of opportunity to respond. The petitioner argued that the order dated 5th April 2022 was passed ex parte and required separate approval from the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (PCCIT) due to being issued after three years from the end of the relevant AY. The court held that without valid service of notice, the proceedings are void, citing relevant judgments.

2. The respondents contended that the notice dated 20th March 2022 was sent via speed post within the prescribed period. However, the court found that the notice was not served at the correct address despite the petitioner updating it with the income tax authorities. The lack of service deprived the petitioner of the opportunity to respond, rendering the notice and subsequent proceedings void. The court emphasized the importance of valid notice service as a jurisdictional requirement.

3. The reopening notice dated 13th April 2022 was challenged on the basis of not receiving proper approval from the PCCIT as required by law due to being issued beyond the three-year limit. The court found that the petitioner's claim of receiving the notice after a message on the registered mobile number was not contested by the respondents. As there was no approval from the PCCIT for the reopening beyond the stipulated period, the court deemed the notice and subsequent order invalid. The court directed the respondents to proceed with assessment after issuing a valid notice and providing the petitioner with a hearing within a specified timeframe.

In conclusion, the court set aside the impugned orders and notices due to jurisdictional errors, emphasizing the necessity of valid notice service and compliance with statutory provisions. The court granted the respondents the opportunity to conduct a proper assessment after ensuring due process and compliance with the law.

---