Retention of seized property survives where recorded reasons support proceeds of crime, while stayed investigation periods are excluded from limitatio...
Specified income of Baddi Barotiwala Nalagarh Development Authority receives conditional tax exemption, retrospectively covering its designated assess...
Specified development authority income receives retrospective tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-...
Unified Brand India framework introduces voluntary Trust Mark certification and funding support for export branding, packaging and global promotional ...
Origin Declaration authentication governs preferential tariff claims under India-UK CETA, requiring a validated reference number before import clearan...
Separate assessment orders for different years remain valid when distinct notices and hearing opportunities prevent prejudice from combined proceeding...
The High Court dismissed the petition challenging the validity of the order of reassessment. It held that sufficient opportunities were granted to the petitioner by serving notices physically and through email. The petitioner had responded to the notice u/s 148A(b) of the Act and even sought further time for filing an additional response. However, no objection was subsequently filed, and the Income Tax Officer passed appropriate orders in accordance with the law. The petitioner had provided an email address for communication and had submitted a response through that email ID. Hence, notices issued to that email ID cannot be considered irregular. The petitioner was aware of the proceedings but failed to avail the opportunity granted. The contention of unawareness of the technological mode of serving notices was rejected by the Court. The Court found no merit in the contention regarding violation of principles of natural justice.
The High Court dismissed the petition challenging the validity of the order of reassessment. It held that sufficient opportunities were granted to the petitioner by serving notices physically and through email. The petitioner had responded to the notice u/s 148A(b) of the Act and even sought further time for filing an additional response. However, no objection was subsequently filed, and the Income Tax Officer passed appropriate orders in accordance with the law. The petitioner had provided an email address for communication and had submitted a response through that email ID. Hence, notices issued to that email ID cannot be considered irregular. The petitioner was aware of the proceedings but failed to avail the opportunity granted. The contention of unawareness of the technological mode of serving notices was rejected by the Court. The Court found no merit in the contention regarding violation of principles of natural justice.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
