TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (5) TMI 1285
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lenged the assessment order dated 31.03.2022, passed by the respondent no.1 under Section 147 read with Section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1961'). The consequential demand notice, penalty order and the recovery proceedings including the attachment order dated 12.01.2026 passed under Section 226(3) of the Act of 1961 attaching the petitioner's bank account maintained in HDFC Bank, Worli Sea Face Branch, Mumbai, are also under challenge. 2. The petitioner claims to have left India in 2006 to live permanently in Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. According to the facts pleaded, the petitioner has been a Non-Resident Indian (hereinafter referred to as 'NRI') for the purpose of the Act of 1961 and sh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....el argued that since the assessment order has been passed without serving a notice upon the petitioner and without following the procedure prescribed by law, the same is liable to be quashed and set aside. 8. Learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondent-Department, on the other hand, submitted that the address given on the assessment order so also the address on which the notice was sought to be served is the one which was given on the Permanent Account Number (hereinafter referred to as 'PAN') and the same address is given on petitioner's passport. He submitted that the petitioner having sold a property in India, was required to file a return and get an account opened on ITBA portal along with requisite particulars including her p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ent order on 27.01.2026 having been passed against her and yet took about two months' time to approach this Court, while the limitation of filing an appeal against a reassessment order is thirty days. 6. Mr. Gupta submitted that there is a series of judgments which postulate that once the limitation for preferring an appeal has passed, no writ can be entertained. 7. He further submitted that it is not a case warranting interference by this Court as the reassessment order had already been passed that too about three years ago. 8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that maybe there was some non-compliance on the part of the petitioner in not filing return of income after having purchase....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s. 22,70,00,000/- in Financial Year 2016-17 (Assessment Year 2017-18). We are at a loss to understand that how a purchase consideration can be a long term capital gain? More particularly when Section 69 of the Act of 1961 is not a part of heading 'E' of Chapter IV of the Act of 1961 and it is rather a part of Chapter VI of the Act of 1961. 12. When we were searching from the record that where this demand of Rs. 39,63,37,950/- has come from, we found that vide rectification order dated 25.04.2024 passed under the Act of 1961, the initial tax demand which was Rs. 11,60,28,795/- has been increased to Rs. 37,87,72,200/-. We find that the same has also been raised/enhanced in total disregard of the statutory mandate under Section 154(3)....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....account is expecting too much, that too, when the person concerned is an NRI and the bank details are not available with the Department. 14. In relation to an NRI, the service or attempt to serve the notice on the address given at the passport, according to us, is sufficient compliance of law, in normal circumstances. 15. Despite having observed so, we are of the view that the assessment order deserves to be set aside because in any case the petitioner was not heard. the Assessing Officer, as the fact remains that no notice was served upon her. 16. We are, therefore, persuaded to set aside the impugned assessment order dated 31.03.2022, which has been passed as per the best of the judgment of the Assessing Officer, in absence of an....