2025 (6) TMI 906 - HC - Income Tax

Digital Tax Notices Invalidated: E-Portal Service Alone Fails Natural Justice Test for Taxpayers Without Robust Online Access

Santhamani Versus The Assessment Unit, The Income Tax Officer, Ward 1 (1), Salem, The Branch Manager, Lakshmi Vilas Bank, The Branch Manager, eLVB (DBS Bank India Ltd), The Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Salem

The SC addressed the validity of ex-parte income tax assessment orders served solely through an e-portal. The Court ruled that digital service is ... Exparte order - procedure followed by the Income Tax Department in serving notices and assessment orders - e-portal scheme - According to the petitioner, since all the notices were uploaded in the e-portal, he was not aware of the fact and further, he is a poor tailor and therefore, he had no occasion to the portal and he had not at all filed any return - HELD THAT:- In the present case, admittedly, the assessment order was passed ex-parte. According to the petitioner, since all the notices were uploaded in the e-portal, he was not aware of the fact and further, he is a poor tailor and therefore, he had no occasion to the portal and he had not at all filed any return. This Court is of the considered opinion that, when an exparte order was passed, after uploading the notices through the portal, atleast the respondent should have sent the order by way of registered post. So that, the petitioner cannot take the plea now before this Court that, the order was not served. In the present case, the petitioner is a poor tailor and therefore, he did not aware of the fact that, he has to file his return of income or reply to the demand notice. This Court finds merit in the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and therefore, is inclined to give one more opportunity to the petitioner to put forth his case before the respondents, by filing a proper reply. Accordingly impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent is set aside.The respondents / Income Tax Department shall make the portal available for filing a reply by the petitioner.The petitioner shall file his reply through the portal, within a period of six weeks from the date of opening of the portal. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED 1. Whether an assessment order passed ex parte after notices and orders are uploaded on the e-portal (faceless scheme) is valid where the taxpayer did not retrieve the documents from the portal and had no physical service of the order. 2. Whether, in circumstances where an ex parte assessment order is passed and the taxpayer is not aware of the proceedings because notices were only uploaded on the portal, the tax authority has an obligation to send the order by registered post or otherwise ensure effective service before relying on the ex parte order. 3. Whether a taxpayer who obtains physical copy of an assessment order belatedly is entitled to an opportunity to file a reply and be afforded personal hearing where the ex parte order was passed without effective notice. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1 - Validity of ex parte assessment where notices/orders were only uploaded on the e-portal Legal framework: The assessment impugned was passed under Section 147 read with Section 144B of the Act; the proceedings followed the faceless scheme with notices and the digitally signed order uploaded to the e-portal. Precedent Treatment: No prior authorities were cited or applied in the judgment; the Court adjudicated on facts and statutory scheme without reference to specific case law. Interpretation and reasoning: The Court recognized that uploading notices and digitally signing orders under the faceless scheme complies with procedural mechanism of the e-portal. However, when an order is passed ex parte, the Court held that mere availability on the portal is insufficient if the affected person has not retrieved the document and had no realistic or actual access. The Court emphasized practical realities of the taxpayer (a poor tailor) who did not regularly access the portal and had not filed returns, making reliance solely on portal upload inequitable in the circumstances. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - where an ex parte assessment is passed after portal upload but the taxpayer did not obtain notice through the portal and had no effective means of knowledge, the assessment cannot be allowed to stand without ensuring effective service or providing an opportunity to be heard. Conclusions: The Court found that the ex parte assessment was vulnerable on grounds of ineffective notice in this factual matrix and proceeded to impose remedial directions (see Orders iv-v). Issue 2 - Obligation of tax authority to ensure effective service (registered post) where ex parte order is passed after portal upload Legal framework: Faceless assessment procedure and statutory provisions for reopening and assessment (Sections 147/148 and Section 144B) set out the procedural context; principles of natural justice (right to be heard) inform the duty to serve notice where adjudication proceeds ex parte. Precedent Treatment: No controlling authority applied; the Court adopted a purposive approach balancing faceless scheme compliance with natural justice. Interpretation and reasoning: The Court held that when an ex parte order is passed, the respondent should at least have sent the order by registered post so that the petitioner cannot legitimately claim non-service. The Court treated the absence of physical service in an ex parte context as a defect warranting relief given the taxpayer's lack of access to the portal and absence of awareness about filing returns. The obligation to ensure effective notice when the consequences are severe (ex parte assessment) was treated as necessary to prevent injustice. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - where proceedings result in an ex parte order, the revenue ought to take additional steps (e.g., registered post) to communicate the order so as to prevent a claim of non-service based solely on technical upload to the portal. Conclusions: The Court concluded that the respondents ought to have taken steps to ensure effective service; failure to do so rendered the ex parte procedure unfair in the present facts and justified setting aside the subsequent order and allowing an opportunity to respond. Issue 3 - Entitlement to fresh opportunity to file reply and to personal hearing where physical copy is obtained belatedly Legal framework: Principles of audi alteram partem and statutory procedure for assessment and reconsideration post-reply are implicated; faceless scheme permits electronic proceedings but does not extinguish the taxpayer's right to be heard. Precedent Treatment: No precedents were cited; the Court exercised supervisory jurisdiction to secure compliance with natural justice. Interpretation and reasoning: The Court found merit in the petitioner's plea for an opportunity to respond because the petitioner only obtained a physical copy of the order in January 2025 and had been unaware earlier. The Court balanced the procedural validity of portal-based notices against the substantive right to be heard. Consequently, the Court set aside the later assessment order (31.03.2022) and directed the respondents to make the portal available, permit filing of a reply within six weeks of portal opening, issue appropriate notice for personal hearing on receipt of the reply, and decide the matter in accordance with law. The Court also provided a fallback mechanism: if the portal is not available, the petitioner shall give a representation to keep the portal available. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - a taxpayer who obtains the assessment/order belatedly after an ex parte process and portal upload is entitled to a fresh opportunity to file a reply and to a personal hearing before the revenue decides the matter on merits. Conclusions: The Court granted relief by setting aside the challenged assessment order and by issuing specific directions to afford an opportunity to be heard, thereby restoring procedural fairness without adjudicating the substantive correctness of the assessment. Cross-references and Practical Directions - The Court's relief ties together Issues 1-3: finding that portal upload alone did not satisfy effective notice in the ex parte context (Issue 1 & 2) and, therefore, ordering a fresh opportunity to be heard (Issue 3). - The Court emphasized procedural remedies rather than substantive reassessment: respondents must open the portal, accept a reply within six weeks, afford personal hearing by issuing appropriate notice, and decide the matter in accordance with law; if portal is unavailable, the petitioner may represent to keep it available. Disposition (Ratio Summarized) Where an ex parte assessment order is passed after uploading notices/orders on an e-portal under the faceless scheme, and the affected person did not retrieve the documents and had no effective notice (particularly where the person is shown to have limited means/access), the assessment cannot be allowed to stand without ensuring effective communication (for example by registered post) or by providing the affected person an opportunity to file a reply and to be heard; remedial directions to that effect are appropriate and the matter should be decided afresh in accordance with law.