TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
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 quashes Assessment Order, mandates speaking order. Petitioner granted time to respond and seek lien removal. Department's awareness pivotal.</h1> The court quashed the Impugned Assessment Order dated 08.09.2021, directing a speaking order within 45 days. The petitioner can respond to the notice ... Validity of assessment - Service of notice, summons, requisition, order and other communication - Adaptation of the mode of communication electronically - Unexplained income u/s 69 r.w.s. 115BBE(b) - HELD THAT:- There is no doubt, that there was a mistake committed by the petitioner while filing the revised return on 05.06.2020. Instead of giving new address and the new e-mail id, the petitioner has given the old postal address and the old e-mail id. Thus, all the communications pursuant to the aforesaid return that was filed were addressed to the old e-mail The fact also remains that other wings of the Income Tax Department was aware of the shifting of the address of the petitioner from old address. Similarly, the respondents were also aware of the change in email id. The respondents were also aware of the change in e-mail id and address while passing order of refund claim for the subsequent financial year i.e., 2019-2020, the notices/orders were sent to the correct address. The Provisions of Income Tax Rules, 1962 under 127 also states that the in case of a company organized under the Companies Act, 2013, notice have to be sent to the address as available in the website of the Ministry of Corporate Affairs. Mistakes on the part of the petitioner and the respondents are on account of adaptation of the mode of communication electronically in view of Section 282 as amended as inserted by Finance No.2 Act, 2009 with effect from 01.2009. Petitioner has not committed a serious mistake although it has turned out to be fatal to the petitioner. Considering the interest of the parties, court is inclined to quash the Impugned Assessment Order and remit the case back to the respondents to pass a speaking order within a period of forty five (45) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Impugned Assessment Order which stands quashed shall be treated as a corrigendum to the Show Cause Notice for the purpose of final dismissal. The petitioner is at liberty to file a reply to the notice which preceded the Impugned Assessment Order dated 08.09.2021 within a period of fifteen days (15) from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The petitioner is also at liberty to approach the respondents to lift the lien. Issues involved:The judgment involves a challenge to an Impugned Assessment Order dated 08.09.2021 for the Assessment Year 2018-2019 under Section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, based on an unexplained investment of Rs. 60 Crores. The petitioner's failure to respond to notices and discrepancies in address and email information are central to the case.Details of the Judgment:Issue 1: Unexplained Investment and Assessment OrderThe Impugned Assessment Order added Rs. 60 Crores as unexplained investment under Section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Despite multiple notices, including a Show Cause Notice, the petitioner did not respond, leading to disallowance of claimed expenditure as unexplained income under Section 115BBE(2).Issue 2: Scheme of AmalgamationThe petitioner previously entered into a Share Purchase Agreement with M/s.Periyapalayam Logistics Park Private Limited, which later merged with the petitioner under a Scheme of Amalgamation sanctioned under Section 233 of the Companies Act, 2013.Issue 3: Address DiscrepanciesThe petitioner shifted its registered office from Gleneden Place to Unit No.7 & 8, Pinnacle Building. Despite this change, the petitioner continued to use the old address and email ID in filings, leading to miscommunication and issuance of notices to the old address.Issue 4: Legal ArgumentsThe petitioner argued that while mistakes were made, the Department was aware of the address and email changes. Reference was made to Section 282 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and specific rules under Rule 127 regarding notice service to companies.Issue 5: Court DecisionThe Court acknowledged the petitioner's errors but noted that the Department was aware of the address change. The judgment quashed the Impugned Assessment Order and directed a speaking order to be passed within 45 days. The petitioner was allowed to reply to the notice within 15 days and seek the lifting of the lien.Separate Judgment by Judge:The judgment was delivered by Honourable Mr. Justice C.Saravanan of the Madras High Court.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
