TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (5) TMI 1800
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed. 3. The hearing fixed on 29.10.2025 stands cancelled. W.P.(C) 6860/2024 4. The petitioner has filed the present petition impugning an assessment order dated 18.03.2024 [impugned order] passed under Section 143 (3) read with Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [the Act]. The petitioner also impugns a penalty proceedings initiated under Section 270A of the Act pursuant to the notice dated 18.03.2024 issued by respondent no. 1 [AU]. The petitioner claims that the impugned order has been passed without issuance of notices to the petitioner. 5. The petitioner claims that the AU had issued notices to the petitioner at an incorrect email ID and therefore, the same were not ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....2023, the petitioner submitted a reply to the notice dated 31.07.2023 - which was sent by email at <[email protected]>. The petitioner submitted certain explanations and stated that further remaining documents, explanations would be submitted by 07.09.2023. However, the petitioner failed to provide any further information, which was sought by the notice dated 31.07.2023 issued under Section 142 (1) of the Act. 12. The AU sent another notice dated 25.02.2024 under Section 142 (1) of the Act seeking certain details and information in connection with the petitioner's return for AY 2022-23. The said notice was also sent at the petitioner's email ID <[email protected]>, which the petitioner claims to be an incorrect email ID.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd Ors.: (2023) 455 ITR 399. On the strength of the said decision, the petitioner contended that the email address mentioned in the Income Tax Return furnished by the assessee is required to be considered as the primary email address and the secondary email ID, as per the PAN Card, is required to be considered as the secondary email address. And, the secondary email address is required to be used only in such circumstances, where the authority is unable to effect service of any communication at the primary address. 17. Mr Indruj Singh Rai, the learned counsel appearing for the Revenue had submitted that the petitioner's email ID in the records of the Ministry of Corporate Affairs [records of the ROC] is the <[email protected]>. I....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y be delivered or transmitted to the person therein named. Explanation.-For the purposes of this section, the expressions "electronic mail" and "electronic mail message" shall have the meanings as assigned to them in Explanation to Section 66-A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (21 of 2000)." 20. In terms of sub-section (2) of Section 282 of the Act, the Central Board of Direct Taxes is empowered to make Rules for providing for the addresses (including the address for electronic mail or electronic mail messages) to which communications may be delivered or transmitted. In exercise of the said powers, the Rules includes rules for service of notice, summons, requisition order and other communications. The relevant extract of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....val policies in relation to such communication." 21. It is expressly clear that in terms of Rule 127 (2) (b) (iii) of the Rules, a communication can be transmitted electronically to the email address of the company as available on the website of the MCA. In the present case, the notices were sent to the petitioner at the email address as available at the website of the MCA and therefore, the contention that the notices had been sent to an incorrect email address, is unmerited. 22. Having stated the above, it is also relevant to refer to Section 292BB of the Act, which was pointed out by Mr Singh, the learned counsel for the Revenue. The said Section is set out below: "292-BB. Notice deemed to be valid in certain circumstances....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... address considering that there is no dispute that the petitioner had received the said notice. This is also evident from the fact that the petitioner had responded to the said notice. The learned counsel for the petitioner had contended that the petitioner may have become aware of the notice by observing the same on the ITBA portal. However, there are no averments to the aforesaid effect. There is also no averment that the petitioner did not receive the notice dated 31.07.2023. It is relevant to refer to the petitioner's averments in its petition in this regard. The same is set out below:- "6.B. That the Respondent No. 1 sent a Notice dated 31/07/2023 u/s 142 (1) of the Act on the wrong e-mail id viz. [email protected] whi....