Assessment Order Overturned for Email Notification Failures, Case Remitted for Reevaluation with Correct Communication Protocols.
The HC set aside the impugned assessment order due to improper email notifications violating natural justice principles. The court remitted the case to the respondent for a fresh order within 12 weeks, ensuring proper communication via the correct email ID. The writ petition was allowed without costs, and related petitions were closed.
Issues:Challenging an assessment order due to incorrect email notifications and violation of principles of natural justice.
Analysis:The petitioner, an income tax assessee, challenged an assessment order for the assessment year 2019-2020, contending that notices and the draft assessment order were sent to wrong email IDs, not the designated one. The petitioner's correct email ID was
[email protected], but notices were sent to
[email protected],
[email protected], and
[email protected]. The petitioner responded to the notice sent to the correct email ID on 16.08.2021, but subsequent notices, including the draft assessment order, were sent to the wrong IDs, leading to a violation of natural justice principles.
The petitioner argued that sending notices to incorrect email IDs was a gross violation of natural justice and not in accordance with the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner was unaware of these notices as they were uploaded on the portal without proper intimation. Even though some notices were sent to the petitioner's email, the petitioner did not have access to crucial information at the headquarters for tax compliances, rendering the assessment incomplete.
The respondents contended that the assessment process became faceless from 01.04.2021, and the system searched for email IDs linked to specific PAN numbers. They argued that the email IDs
[email protected] and
[email protected] belonged to the petitioner and that the petitioner could have accessed information from the web portal. The respondents maintained that the impugned order was appealable before the Appellate Commissioner, suggesting dismissal of the writ petition.
The court, after considering the arguments, found that the order was passed without proper intimation to the petitioner, leading to incomplete communication. Merely sending intimations to branch officers was deemed insufficient for completing the assessment, especially when the initial notice was sent to the correct email ID and responded to by the petitioner. Consequently, the court set aside the impugned order and remitted the case back to the respondent for a fresh order within 12 weeks, ensuring the web portal is accessible for the petitioner to reply to the notice within the specified time.
In conclusion, the writ petition was allowed, with no costs imposed, and the connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
