TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (4) TMI 1134
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nce, the Petitioner is not assessable as firm but Petitioner is a co-operative society. iii) The notice issued u/s. 148 of the Act dated 29.04.2022 DIN: ITBA/AST/S/148_1/2022-23/1042903688(1) for the assessment year 2018-19 (Annexure-D) issued by the First Respondent in the status of the Firm, since, the Petitioner is not assessable as firm but Petitioner is a co-operative society; iv) The exparte order of assessment dated 27.02.2024 made u/s.147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s 144B of the Act, in DIN No. ITBA/AST/S/147/2023-14/1061551293(1) by the Second Respondent (Annexure-E) in the status of the Firm, since, the Petitioner is not assessable as firm but petitioner is a co-operative society; v) The exparte penalty order passed u/s. 271AAC (1) of the Act dated 26.08.2024 passed by the Second Respondent in DIN No. ITBA/PNL/F/271AAC(1)/2024-25/1067993678(1) by the Second Respondent (Annexure-F); and vi) The exparte penalty order passed u/s. 272A (1) (d) of the Act dated 12.07.2024 passed by the Second respondent in DIN No. ITBA/PNL/F/272A(1)(d)/2024-25/1066655584(1) by the Second Respondent (Annexure-G); and B. Such other relief or reliefs this Hon'ble ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....3/2022 bearing DIN No. ITBA/AST/S/147/2022-23/1050591192(1), issued by the Respondent No. 2 for the assessment year 2015-16 herein marked as Annexure-A3. v) Issue a writ of Certiorari or direction in the nature of a writ of certiorari quashing the penalty order u/s 271F of the Act dated 30/08/2023 bearing DIN No. ITBA/PNL/F/271F/2023-24/1055602356(1), issued by the Respondent No. 2 for the assessment year 2015-16 herein marked as Annexure-A4. vi) Issue a writ of Certiorari or direction in the nature of a writ of certiorari quashing the penalty order u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act dated 04/09/2023 bearing DIN No. ITBA/PNL/F/271(1)(c)/2023-24/1055897499(1), issued by the Respondent No. 2 for the assessment year 2015-16 herein marked as Annexure-A5. vii) Issue a writ of Certiorari or direction in the nature of a writ of certiorari quashing the penalty order dated 18/09/2023 issued u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act bearing DIN No. ITBA/PNL/F/271(1)(b)/2022-23/1050591328(1), issued by the Respondent No. 2 for the assessment year 2015-16 herein marked as Annexure-A6. viii) And pass such other orders as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the interest of justic....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sequential penalty orders and demand notices dated 24.08.2023 and 07.07.2023 [Annexures-A4, A5 and A6]. 2. The petitioner's primary grievance is with the notice under Section 148A (b) of the IT Act and based on this grievance, it is contended that all further proceedings must fail. Sri Ravishankar S V, the learned counsel for the petitioner, canvasses that the first respondent has caused the aforesaid notice under Section 148A (b) of the IT Act without digital signature and in view of the decision of the High Court of Bombay in Prakash Krishnavtar Bhardwaj vs. Income Tax Officer, reported in [2023] 451 ITR 27 [Bombay], all further proceedings must fail. 3. Sri Ravishankar S V, also submits that during the financial year relevant to the assessment year 2015-16, the petitioner was employed with M/s Varshitha Enterprises, Kunigal; that the proprietor of this enterprise was not keeping good health and therefore had issued necessary mandate to the petitioner to operate the concern's bank account maintained with the Indian Overseas Bank; that the petitioner, bona fide and not intending to disturb the proprietor who was not keeping good health, credited the cash received....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at with the authorities being unable to dispute that the notice under Section 148A (b) of the IT Act is not either digitally or manually signed and with the proposition enunciated by the High Court of Bombay in the aforesaid decision being applicable on all fours to this case, the petition must be disposed of on the ground that the first respondent could not have continued the proceedings based on 148A (b) notice dated 17.03.2022. However, the authorities must be reserved with liberty, subject to all just exceptions in law, to initiate further proceedings. Hence, the following ORDER The petition is allowed and the impugned notice dated 17.03.2022 issued by the first respondent under Section 148A (b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [Annexure-A], the subsequent adjudication order dated 30.03.2022 under Section 148A (d) [Annexure-A1] of the IT Act, the notice dated 31.03.2022 under Section 148 of the IT Act [Annexure-A2], the assessment order dated 24.02.2023 under Section 147 read with Section 144 of the IT Act [Annexure-A3] and the consequential penalty orders and demand notices dated 24.08.2023 and 07.07.2023 [Annexures-A4, A5 and A6] are quashed." 7. As can ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of said immovable property. 4. Petitioner submitted an elaborate reply on 18th March 2023 and also raised certain objections. The main objection raised was that under the provision of Section 148A (b) of the Act, the assessee should be provided an opportunity of being heard by serving upon the assessee a notice to show cause within such time as may be specified in the notice being not less than seven days but not exceeding thirty days from the date on which said notice has been issued. Since the notice dated 15th March 2023 provides only for five days when the law requires minimum seven days to be given, the notice itself was bad-in-law. 5. Along with reply, Petitioner also provided a photo copy of the notarised affidavit of Petitioner's brother affirmed on 18th March 2023, in which the brother has confirmed of giving gift of Rs.75 Lakhs to Petitioner on 26th March 2019, which is much beyond the relevant Assessment Year. 6. Respondent No. 1 has passed the impugned order dated 31st March 2023 under Clause D of Section 148A of the Act. In the order, Respondent No. 1 states that from the statement issued by HDFC Bank for the period 1st April 2018 to 31s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hall provide between seven to thirty days time for the assessee to submit their reply. A template of the show cause notice is also annexed to the guidelines. Therefore, in view of the guidelines, we would also read that the minimum seven days required to be made as a mandatory requirement and failure to comply with would render a notice itself invalid. Therefore, on this ground alone, the notice requires to be quashed and set aside. Perhaps, being aware of this position, Respondent No. 1 has chosen not to deal with these objections raised by Petitioner in the reply to the show cause notice. 10. We also found in the said guidelines a provision that the order under Section 148A (d) of the Act shall be sent to assessee along with the approval of the specified authority for such order under Section 148A (d) of the Act. In the case at hand, the approval that has been sent is of some other assessee and not Petitioner. This also indicates non-application of mind by Respondent No. 1. On this ground also, the order dated 31st March 2023 impugned in the Petition is required to be quashed and set aside. 11. Further, in the guidelines to which is annexed a template o....