TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
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>Writ petition challenging reassessment proceedings dismissed as Revenue properly served Section 148A(b) notice at admitted address</h1> <h3>Mahabir Singh Joon Versus The Income Tax Officer & Anr</h3> Delhi HC dismissed the writ petition challenging reassessment proceedings. The petitioner argued that notice u/s 148A(b) should have been served via ... Validity of reassessment proceedings - non-service of notice u/s 148A(b) through e-mail - Denial of principle of natural justice - petitioner submitted that the notice u/s 148A(b) ought to have been served on the petitioner's registered e-mail with the Income Tax Department - HELD THAT:- In the instant case, a careful perusal of the averments made by the petitioner manifests that the petitioner seems to have ingeniously given an impression about violation of the principles of natural justice. The averments, however, do not unequivocally allude to the fact that no notice at all has been served upon the petitioner u/s 148A(b). Rather, what is sought to be contended is that the service of the notice through e-mail was not effected. In our considered view, the same does not seem to be the mandate of Section 148A(b) - Revenue has countered the version of the petitioner by placing on record the delivery report at the address of the petitioner. There is no quarrel regarding the address on record or the delivery report. Additionally, we find that there is no rejoinder to the averments made in the affidavit by the Revenue. The same, therefore, remains uncontroverted. It could be said that the statutory requirement was substantially fulfilled by the Revenue and to permit a challenge on a flimsy ground, as raised before us, would effectively amount to violence with the language of the statute. The requirement of natural justice stood fulfilled once the notice was served at the admitted address of the petitioner and the Revenue cannot be faulted in that case, irrespective of the consequences that flow therefrom. We additionally find that the order of assessment came to be passed and the petitioner has an efficacious alternative remedy to take appropriate recourse in accordance with law. No reason, much less a cogent reason, to entertain the instant writ petition or to annul the order passed under Section 148A(1)(d). Issues involved:1. Validity of the order passed u/s 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.2. Service of the show cause notice u/s 148A(b) to the petitioner.3. Compliance with the principles of natural justice.Summary:1. Validity of the order passed u/s 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961:The petitioner challenged the order dated 27 March 2023 passed by the Revenue u/s 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the consequential initiation of assessment proceedings for AY 2016-17. The petitioner argued that the show cause notice u/s 148A(b) was not served, thus violating the principles of natural justice.2. Service of the show cause notice u/s 148A(b) to the petitioner:The petitioner contended that the notice u/s 148A(b) was not served, preventing them from filing a reply. The Revenue, however, provided evidence showing that the notice was sent via speed post and delivered to the petitioner's address on 17 March 2023. The Revenue also submitted proof of delivery and a tracking report, which was not contested by the petitioner.3. Compliance with the principles of natural justice:The Court held that the mandate of Section 148A(b) is to provide an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The Court found that the Revenue had substantially fulfilled this requirement by serving the notice at the petitioner's address. The Court noted that the principles of natural justice were not violated as the petitioner was given a fair opportunity to respond. The Court further observed that the petitioner had an efficacious alternative remedy to challenge the assessment order passed on 14 January 2024.Conclusion:The Court dismissed the writ petition, stating that the statutory requirements were met and the principles of natural justice were upheld. The petitioner was advised to take appropriate legal recourse against the assessment order if so desired.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
