TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (4) TMI 1405
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....; (ii)(a) The interest levied/accrued on Impugned Demand as on the date of filing of the Petitioner be set aside; (ii)(b) pending the final hearing and disposal of the Petitioner, this Hon'ble Court be pleased to stay any accrual/levy of interest by the Respondent on the Impugned Demand (iii) a declaration that no dues are payable by the Petitioner to the Income Tax Department for the demand pursuant to returns for A.Y. 2008-09; (iv) Direct the Respondent and the Income Tax Department to not adjust any further refunds that may be due and payable to the Petitioner as against the impugned demand; (v) Direct the Respondent to refund/return the wrongly adjusted refunds amounting to Rs. 9,312/-;" 2. Brief facts giving rise to the present Writ Petition are that the Petitioner has been a regular taxpayer for the last 25 years. The Petitioner is subject to Income Tax Ward 41 and falls within the jurisdiction of the Respondent. The Petitioner is a Computer Training Institute, a franchisee of the Computer Management and Information Technology (CMIT). 3. For the Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2008-2009, the Petitioner filed his Income Tax Return thro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ivaran portal on 24th January 2020 and requested rectification to nullify the demand. Thereafter, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, from March 2020, all offices were closed, and the Petitioner's case with respect to the above rectification was temporarily paused. It has been stated in the Petition that during the period of 2020-2021, the Petitioner and his family faced a lot of misfortune, and the Petitioner was diagnosed with COVID-19 twice during the aforesaid period. Since the Petitioner's case was quite severe, it took him a long time to heal and recover from the COVID-19 virus infection. In fact, the Petitioner also lost some close relatives during this period. It is because of all this that the Petitioner could not focus on any work-related matters, and as a result, the Petitioner could not follow up with the aforesaid grievance with the Income Tax Department. 7. It appears that the grievance of the Petitioner filed on the portal was closed on 26th May 2020. The resolution for the Petitioner's grievance application stated that the Return for A.Y. 2008-2009 declared the income at Rs. 5,31,714/- and credit for prepaid taxes of Rs. 35,450/- has already been given. Since the Petit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....there has been negligence on the part of the Petitioner in approaching the Respondent under Section 119(2)(b) for filing the revised Return, and hence the Respondent has correctly not entertained the application filed by the Petitioner. Despite this, we had asked the learned Counsel for the Respondent to take instructions as to whether the intimation under Section 143(1) was ever served upon the Petitioner. The learned Counsel for the Revenue has today tendered an email dated 15th April 2026, enclosing a screenshot of the Income Tax Department portal which seems to suggest that the intimation under Section 143(1) was passed/issued on 22nd September 2009, and the same was served on 2nd October 2009. However, the actual intimation has not been brought on record and nor is there any proof of service. This is an admitted position before us. 13. It is in these facts that we have to decide whether the Petitioner is justified in contending that the impugned demand, as supposedly reflected in the intimation under Section 143(1), along with the interest, ought to be quashed and set aside. 14. We find that the issue is no longer res integra. This very Bench, in the case of Udayan Bhask....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... would be difficult for the department to retrieve such an old record of the notice of demand dated 25.06.2011. He, however, fairly agrees that the alleged impugned demand was raised merely on account of difference in approach of reporting the foreign tax credit. 18. We observe that clause (d) of Section 143(1) requires that the intimation should be prepared/generated and be sent to the assessee specifying the sum determined to be payable by the assesssee or the sum due as refund to the assessee. Further, the second proviso to Section 143(1) [as applicable to A.Y.2010-11] reads as under:- "Provided further that no intimation under this subsection shall be sent after the expiry of one year from the end of the financial year in which the return is made." 19. Further, sub Section (1) of Section 156 of the Act reads as under:- "156. (1) When any tax, interest, penalty, fine or any other sum is payable in consequence of any order passed under this Act, the Assessing Officer shall serve upon the assessee a notice of demand in the prescribed form specifying the sum so payable : Provided that where any sum is determined to be payable by....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd court directions, the demand was liable to be quashed. The relevant portion of this decision reads thus:- "5. On perusal of the portal sometime in April 2021, it was found that a demand of Rs. 46,84,750/- was appearing in the portal as against the erstwhile entity. It appeared that the demand arose out of an order passed under Section 154 of the Act on 31st March 2021 for Assessment Year 2013-2014. As no communication had been received with regard to the said order, representations were made to respondent no.1 to provide copy of the rectification order dated 31st March 2021 passed under Section 154 of the Act. As no response was received, petitioner even filed an application under the RTI Act, 2005. In response to the application, petitioner was served with a copy of the computation sheet. Petitioner, therefore, preferred an appeal under Section 19(1) of the RTI Act, 2005 before the First Appellate Authority. Petitioner's application was disposed by the First Appellate Authority by an order dated 18th July 2023 and respondents were directed to reexamine the matter and furnish full and appropriate information sought within 15 days from the date of receipt of the order. N....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the Respondents vide his rectification application dated 07.11.2017 but the same was never furnished to the Petitioner. Even in the affidavit in reply dated 01.12.2025, Respondent No.1 has not produced the intimation under Section 143(1) which he claims is issued. It was not produced even before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) or the Tribunal. 22. Thus, we are of the view that in the absence of any intimation under Section 143(1) raising the demand or any independent notice of demand, recovery of such non-existent demand cannot be made against the Petitioner." 47. In the present case, there is absolutely no material on record to substantiate the existence of valid orders giving rise to the impugned demands. The Respondents have failed to produce the orders and service records, despite repeated opportunities. The failure of Respondent No.2 to respond and the inability of the Pune Officer to locate records leads to the inevitable conclusion that no such valid orders exist or were ever served upon the Petitioner. An adverse inference must necessarily be drawn against the Respondents. Old matters and demands cannot be allowed to suddenly surface on the portal....