TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (6) TMI 1498
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hore Hospital' and was an assessee under the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act') on the files of the 3rd respondent. After the introduction of the Faceless Assessment Scheme, the petitioner is an assessee on the files of the 1st respondent. The e-mail address of the Chief Financial Officer (CFO), the Principal Officer, was provided to the Income Tax Department by the petitioner for official communication. 2. The petitioner's assessment for the assessment year (AY) 2022 - 2023 was processed under Section 143(1) of the Act and selected under 'CASS' category for complete scrutiny. The petitioner was issued Ext.P1 notice under Section 143(2) of the Act. The petitioner submitted Ext.P2 reply to Ext.P1. Thereafter, the petitioner was iss....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he earlier notices had been received at the e-mail address of the former CFO which is now defunct. The petitioner states that they have meticulously complied with all income tax assessment requirements in the past and the omission to reply to Exts.P5 and P6 notices was because of the reason that the petitioner did not receive those notices since they were sent to the e-mail address of the former Principal Officer which was not accessible to the Company and that there was no intention to conceal their income or to furnish any inaccurate particulars. It is stated that the omission to reply to Exts.P5 and P6 notices was only inadvertent and bonafide. The petitioner submits that there was lack of opportunity to respond to the show cause notices....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... by the learned Standing Counsel that the writ petition is not maintainable as there are no exceptional circumstances warranting interference of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is submitted that the petitioner has got an efficacious alternate remedy by way of an appeal under Section 246A of the Act against the orders impugned and that it is the duty of the assessee to comply with the statutory requirements like updating the e-mail id. Sri.Jose relies on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax v. IVen Interactive Limited [(2019) 418 ITR 662 (SC)]. Paragraphs 6 and 7 thereof read as follows:- "6. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties at length....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ommunication dated December 6, 2005. The only document available is Form No.18 filed with the Registrar of Companies. Filing of Form-18 with the Registrar of Companies cannot be said to be an intimation to the Assessing Officer with respect to intimation of change in address. It appears that no application was made by the assessee to change the address in the PAN data base and in the PAN database the old address continued. Therefore, in absence of any intimation to the Assessing Officer with respect to change in address, the Assessing Officer was justified in issuing the notice at the address available as per the PAN database. Therefore, the Assessing Officer cannot be said to have committed any error and in fact the Assessing Officer was j....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the 1961 Act was beyond the time prescribed in the proviso to Section 143(2) of the 1961 Act." 7. Now so far as the observations made by the High Court while concurring with the view of the learned Tribunal that merely by filing of return of income with the new address, it shall be enough for the assessee to discharge its legal responsibility for observing proper procedural steps as per the Companies Act and the Income Tax Act is concerned, we are of the opinion that mere mentioning of the new address in the return of income without specifically intimating the Assessing Officer with respect to change of address and without getting the PAN database changed, is not enough and sufficient. In absence of any specific intimation to the Asse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ends that there was lack of opportunity to respond to the show cause notices which is violative of the principles of natural justice and against the scheme of assessment under Section 143(3) read with Section 144B of the Act for Faceless Assessment Scheme which provides for opportunity to the assessee to rebut the allegations in the show cause notices. 9. This Court is to refrain from intervening with cases where there is an effective alternate remedy, unless there exists compelling reasons to do so. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Assistant Commissioner of State Tax v. Commercial Steel Ltd. [2021 KHC 7037 : 2021 (5) KLT OnLine 1142] has held that a writ petition can be entertained in exceptional circumstances where there is; i) a breach of....