{"id":38643,"date":"2024-02-01T11:29:09","date_gmt":"2024-02-01T05:59:09","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/praveen-kumar-v-ito-2023-294-taxman-488-mad-hc\/"},"modified":"2024-02-01T11:29:09","modified_gmt":"2024-02-01T05:59:09","slug":"praveen-kumar-v-ito-2023-294-taxman-488-mad-hc","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/praveen-kumar-v-ito-2023-294-taxman-488-mad-hc\/","title":{"rendered":"Praveen Kumar v. ITO (2023) 294 Taxman 488 (Mad.)(HC)"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>The\u00a0 petitioner challenged\u00a0 notice\u00a0 issued under section 148 of the Act, on the\u00a0 ground that notice had not been issued\/served in a manner as contemplated under Act.\u00a0 Dismissing the petition the court held that\u00a0 from records that notice under section 148, dated 29-3-2019 had been issued on 30-3-2019 and there was an entry in postal register in support of same thus confirming completion of service of notice. Another notice was sent on 31-7-2019, which was received by one &#8216;A&#8217; whose identity was questioned by the petitioner. Court held that\u00a0\u00a0 questioning of identity by the petitioner\u00a0\u00a0 was totally irrelevant, since service of notice under section 148 on assessee was already been complete at first instance.\u00a0 Notices had been repeatedly issued even thereafter, and admittedly served on assessee to which assessee had not bothered to respond and, thus, there was no infirmity in the order of assessment both in regard to procedure followed by officer or as far as service of notice was concerned.\u00a0 (AY. 2012-13)<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>S. 148:  Reassessment-Notice-Notice dated 29-3-2019 had been issued on 30-3-2019 and there was an entry in postal register in support-Order passed is valid in law. [S. 144, 147, Art. 226]  <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-38643","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-income-tax-act"],"acf":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p9S2Rw-a3h","jetpack-related-posts":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/38643","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=38643"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/38643\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":38644,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/38643\/revisions\/38644"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=38643"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=38643"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=38643"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}