S. 148A : Reassessment – Conducting inquiry, providing opportunity before issue of notice – Unsigned notice – Order is bad in law- Notice and order was quashed . [S. 147, 148 292B, Art. 14, 226]
Petitioner is a non-resident Indian, residing in Dubai, UAE and since his total income for the relevant financial year was below the maximum amount chargeable to tax, he has not filed the return of income . The petitioner filed his response to the said notice electronically on 28.03.2022, pursuant to which, Respondent No.1 addressed an order under clause (d) of section 148A of the Act on 02.04.2022. It is the petitioner’s case that this order was never received by him through e-mail; however, he has subsequently received a copy of this order on 16.04.2022 by speed post. The notice was unsigned. The petitioner filed writ petition and contended that since the notice dated 02.04.2022 issued u/s.148 of the Act was unsigned and never sent to the petitioner, the same is invalid, bad-in-law and deserves to be quashed and set aside; that since the purported unsigned notice issued u/s. 148 of the Act itself was never issued in the eyes of law and three years have been elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year, in this case Assessment Year 2015-16, as prescribed u/s.149(1)(b) of the Act, the action is beyond limitation. Allowing the petition the Court held that the order passed on the basis of unsigned notice is bad in law . Notice and order was quashed and set aside. Relied on CIT v. Aparna Agency (P.) Ltd. (2004) 267 ITR 50 / 139 Taxman 132 (Cal.)(HC) B.K. Gooyee v. CIT (1966) 62 ITR 109 (Cal.)(HC) Umashankar Mishra v. CIT (1982) 136 ITR 330 / 11 Taxman 75 (MP)(HC) (WP No. 9835 of 2022 dt. 9-1-2023 )(AY. 2015 -16)
Prakash Krishnavtar Bhardwaj v. NFAC (Bom.)(HC)
[Coram : Hon’ble Shri Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur and Hon’ble Shri Justice Valmiki Sa Menezes]