TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (10) TMI 237
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....9/2022 The said application has been filed by the petitioner contending that the Section 148 notice served through Speed Post and the notice available on the ITBA Portal bear distinct Document Identification Numbers ('DIN'). It is contended that upon verification it was found that the Section 148 notice sent through speed post, which bears the DIN & Notice No: ITBA/AST/S/148/2020-21/1032022972(1) does not exist on the ITBA Portal. It is stated that no record of the said DIN is available on the ITBA portal and no explanation for this has been offered in the counter affidavit, giving rise to the apprehension that it is not genuine. It is stated that the Section 148 Notice available on the ITBA Portal bears a distinct DIN & Notice No: ITBA/A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ore process got rolled back. The same document could have been manually signed and dispatched by user. Further, due to technical issues, the process of document generation was retrigger and old document with DIN: ITBA/AST/S/148/2020-21/1032022972(1) was neither saved in ITBA system nor shared with e-filing. After the process got rolled back, the system retriggered the document generation for notice u/s 148 vide DIN: ITBA/AST/S/148/2020-21/1032075144(1). As per system validation, the new notice u/s 148, for PAN:AAACV3744K, AY:2013-14, Document issued with DIN: ITBA/AST/S/148/2020-21/1032075144(1) on 3/31/2021 5:11:51 PM. Further, same shared with e-filing and on email on 16-Apr-2022. (after expiration of 15 days for signing)."" In view of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... address on 03rd April 2021. This notice was not uploaded on the ITBA portal. 4. The primary contention of the petitioner is that the date of issuance of the impugned notices should be considered for the purpose of determining limitation and not the date of preparation or generation. 5. The petitioner has stated that the impugned notices were issued without following the mandate of limitation prescribed under Section 149 of the Act of 1961 as amended by the Finance Act, 2021. It was also argued that the provisions of Section 282A(1) of the Act of 1961, which requires that any notice or document to be issued under the Act has to be signed mandatorily, was not followed for the impugned notice bearing DIN & Notice No: ITBA/AST/S/148/2020-21/....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....erned assessee. This process, as per the Department, is concluded when the DIN is generated on the ITBA portal. 9. The petitioner found this counter affidavit filed by the ITO to be false and misleading and the Application No. 26039 of 2022 under Section 340 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, was filed before this court. The said application has been disposed of vide this order. The issue of notices bearing distinct DIN has been dealt with while disposing of the aforementioned application. 10. We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the paper book. This Court finds that there is a disputed question of fact, while the petitioner has produced record indicating that the impugned notice was sent for despatch through ....