IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
Bhargav D. Karia, Niral R. Mehta, JJ.
Ninaben Tusharbhai Shah – Petitioner
Versus
Income Tax Officer, Ward 5(3)(1), Ahmedabad – Respondent
R/Special Civil Application No. 916 of 2023
Decided On : 19-02-2024
Income Tax Act - Challenge to order under Section 148A(d) and notice under Section 148 - Section 148A(b), Section 148A(d), Section 148
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the order under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as well as the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act. The petitioner argued that no time was granted to file a reply as required by Section 148A(b) and that the notice under Section 148 was issued without jurisdiction.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the notice under Section 148A(b) did not provide the petitioner with the required time to file a reply, as mandated by the Act. Additionally, it was noted that the notice under Section 148 was issued without jurisdiction and contrary to the provisions of the Act.
Issues: The issues revolved around the validity of the notice under Section 148A(b) and the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer to issue the notice under Section 148.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the notice under Section 148A(b) did not comply with the requirement to grant the assessee not less than seven days to submit a reply, as mandated by the Act. Furthermore, the notice under Section 148 was issued without jurisdiction and contrary to the provisions of the Act.
Final Decision: The impugned order under Section 148A(d) and the notice under Section 148 were quashed and set aside, and the petition was allowed.
JUDGMENT :
BHARGAV D. KARIA, J.
1. Heard learned advocate Mr.Hardik V. Vora for the petitioner and learned Senior Standing Counsel Mr.Varun K. Patel with learned advocate Mr. Dev Patel for the for the respondent.
2. Rule, returnable forthwith. Learned Senior Standing Counsel Mr.Varun Patel waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of the respondent.
3. Having regard to the controversy involved in the petition in narrow compass, the same is taken up for final hearing with consent of learned advocates for the respective parties.
4. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 26th March, 2022 passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) as well as the notice dated 29th March, 2022 issued under Section 148 of the Act.
5. The brief facts of the case are as under :
5.1. The petitioner is an individual and filed her return of income for Assessment Year 2018-19 on 03.08.2018 declaring total income at Rs.8,80,390/-. The return of the income was processed under Section 143(1) of the Act.
5.2. A notice dated 24th March, 2022 under Section 148A(b) of the Act which was digitally signed at 03:31 PM on 26th March, 2022 was issued to the petitioner requiring the petitioner to submit response on 24th March, 2022.
5.3. It appears that thereafter the petitioner could not file the reply as no time was granted to the petitioner to file the reply by the respondent-Assessing Officer and the impugned order under Section 148A(d) was passed on 26th March, 2022 and thereafter, the impugned notice under Section 148 was issued on 29th March, 2022.
6.1. Learned advocate Mr.Hardik Vora for the petitioner submitted that the impugned notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act was issued as the Assessing Officer was required to give opportunity to the petitioner to file reply to such notice within a period of not less than seven days time from the date of issuance of notice, however, the notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act has not provided any time to the petitioner. It was pointed out that though the notice is dated 24th March, 2022, the same was digitally signed by the Assessing Officer on 26th March, 2022.
6.2. It was pointed out that in the impugned order dated 26th March, 2022 passed under Section 148A(d) of the Act, the Assessing Officer, in paragraph No.6 thereof, has stated that the petitioner has not filed the reply even after lapse of more than seven days which is not true and correct as no time was granted in the notice under Section 148A(d) to the petitioner to file reply and the order under Section 148A(d) was passed within two days.
6.3. It was further pointed out that in the impugned notice issued under Section 148 of the Act it was stated that the notice was issued after obtaining prior approval of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Ahmedabad (for short ‘the PCIT’) recorded on 25th March, 2022 which is prior to even digitally signing the notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act. It was therefore submitted that the Assessing Officer has no jurisdiction to issue notice contrary to the provisions of the Act.
7. On the other hand, learned Senior Standing Counsel Mr.Varun Patel for the respondent submitted that the matter may be remanded back to the Assessing Officer for granting time to the petitioner-assessee to submit the reply and thereafter, after considering the reply of the petitioner, within reasonable time the Assessing Officer shall pass a fresh order under Section 148A(d) of the Act.
8. Section 148A(b) of the Act reads as under :
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the notice under Section 148A(b) must provide the assessee with not less than seven days to submit a reply, and the issuance of notices must c....
The court established that failing to consider a taxpayer's submission violates procedural fairness in tax assessments, necessitating the annulment of prior notices.
The main legal point established is that the delay in issuance of a notice beyond the limitation period and the inchoate nature of a digitally signed notice can lead to the quashing of the notice and....
The Income Tax Officer failed to comply with mandatory response time requirements, violating the petitioner's right to due process under the Income Tax Act.
Notice issued without granting statutory time to respond violated the principles of natural justice, rendering the order invalid.
Section 148A advisedly uses the expression ‘enquiry’.
Section 148A(c) has been violated as it casts a duty on the Assessing Officer, by using the expression ‘shall’, to consider the reply of the Petitioner/assessee in response to notice under Section 14....
Reassessing without a hearing contravenes natural justice principles; proceedings must ensure opportunities for taxpayer representation.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.