TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (2) TMI 411
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ided to continue with the reassessment proceedings for Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. Before adverting to the issues that arise for consideration, it will be apposite to give, in brief, the factual backdrop giving rise to the present case. 3. The petitioner is an assessee regularly filing his return of income in Delhi and is assessed to tax within the jurisdiction of the respondents. For Assessment Year 2012-13, the petitioner filed his return of income on 26.09.2012 declaring an income of Rs. 9,39,990/-. 4. On 31.03.2019, at 11:07 pm, an e-mail was sent to the petitioner's registered mail id from the office of the Assessing Officer, which was viewed by him on 01.04.2019. The document annexed thereto however bore the name and PAN of s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he impugned order dated 30.12.2025, the respondents rejected the said objections and directed continuation of the reassessment proceedings which has been impugned before us. 9. Mr. Manuj Sabharwal, learned counsel for the petitioner, at the outset, submitted that though a notice under Section 148 of the Act of 1961 was issued and uploaded on the e-filing portal on 31.03.2019, no automatic e-mail was triggered through the ITBA portal, instead, on the very same day, the Assessing Officer manually sent an e-mail enclosing a notice which was relating to an entirely different assessee, namely, M/s Paramsant Global Infratech Ltd. and it bore some other PAN number. 10. He contended that such a notice cannot constitute valid issuance or servi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....assailed the mode and validity of service and did not dispute the factum of issuance of the notice under Section 148 within limitation. 14. He contended that the reliance on the judgment rendered in the case of Suman Jeet (supra) is also wholly misplaced inasmuch as in the said case, on account of the regime change in limitation with effect from 01.04.2021, the Department had generated an extraordinarily large number of notices on 31.03.2021, and to prevent the ITBA system from collapsing, the notices were released in batches. In that process, some notices reached the assessees before midnight, while others were despatched shortly thereafter, giving rise to the dispute. 15. Learned senior standing counsel contended that under the unam....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....footing to a jurisdictional defect. 20. The mere fact that no real-time e-mail alert was triggered or that the petitioner did not view the same on that date i.e. 31.03.2019 cannot, by itself, lead to the conclusion that the notice was never "issued". 21. The judgment in the case of Suman Jeet Agarwal (supra) is clearly distinguishable as the decision arose out of a wholly peculiar and time-bound situation arising out of the regime change brought about by the Finance Act, 2021, where the limitation framework within the Act of 1961 itself stood altered with effect from 01.04.2021, and the controversy centred around notices generated on the last day of the old regime but despatched thereafter. 22. The instant case is governed by the p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....there is inherent lack of jurisdiction. The Assessing Officer cannot be faulted merely on the ground that attachment sent therewith contained some other assessee's notice. In any case it was a curable defect. 25. In view of the discussion foregoing, this Court is of the considered opinion that the order dated 30.12.2025 does not warrant interference. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. 26. All pending applications, also stand disposed of in the aforesaid terms. ============= Document 1 GOVERNMENT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF FINANCE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT OFFICE OF THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 19(3), DELHI INCOME TAX DEFORTHEM To. PAWAN SACHDEVA C-97 , NARAINA VIHAR NEW DELHI 110028 , Delhi India AY Dated:....