2023 (9) TMI 388 - HC - Income Tax

Court upholds validity of notice under Income-Tax Act despite non-service claim. Petitioner must file appeal within two weeks.

The court upheld the validity of the notice served under Section 148 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961, despite the petitioner's claims of non-service. The ... Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - Service of the Notice u/s 148 - Prescribed manner of service of notice - HELD THAT:- Notice u/s 148 dated 29.03.2019 has been issued on 30.03.2019. There is an entry in the postal register in support of this. The unserved cover was returned by the postal authorities on 13.04.2019 and there is an endorsement to that effect by the authority which is placed on record. The postal authority has written the new address i.e., address 2, on the returned cover. With this, service is complete. Over enthusiastically and by way of abundant caution, the notice u/s148 has been sent yet again on 31.07.2019 and this has been received by one 'A.Lakshmi' on 31.07.2019. According to petitioner, there is nobody by that name in that address. However, this is really irrelevant, since service of notice u/s 148 on the petitioner is already been complete even at first instance. That apart, notices had been repeatedly issued even thereafter and admittedly served on the petitioner to which the petitioner has not bothered to respond. Thus, find no infirmity in the impugned order of assessment both in regard to the procedure followed by the officer or as far as service of notice is concerned. This writ petition is thus dismissed, though with liberty. The petitioner seeks time to file statutory appeal and is granted two weeks from today for such purpose. Issues Involved:The challenge to an order of re-assessment under the Income-Tax Act, 1961 based on the alleged improper service of notice under Section 148.Summary:The petitioner contested an order of re-assessment issued under the Income-Tax Act, 1961, claiming that the notice under Section 148 was not served as required by the Act, thus seeking to invalidate the assessment.The petitioner had changed residences from address 1 to address 2, alleging that the notice under Section 148 was not served at either address.Despite the petitioner's claim of non-service of the notice, it was found that summons issued on 28.09.2019 and a final hearing notice dated 08.11.2019 were duly served and received by the petitioner, who failed to respond or file a return of income for the relevant assessment year.Records indicated that the notice under Section 148 was first issued on 29.03.2019, with evidence of dispatch and return by postal authorities due to non-delivery, after which the notice was reissued on 31.07.2019 and received by an individual at the address. Even though the petitioner disputed the addressee, the court deemed the service of notice as valid.Despite subsequent notices being served on the petitioner, who did not respond, the court found no procedural irregularities in the assessment order or the service of notice, leading to the dismissal of the writ petition with liberty to file a statutory appeal within two weeks.The petitioner was granted time to file an appeal, which would be accepted by the first Appellate Authority without limitation constraints but subject to other requirements, while interim protection granted during the writ petition was lifted, and no costs were imposed.