Facts of the Case

The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging:

  • Order dated 31.03.2022 passed under Section 148A(d), and
  • Notice issued under Section 148 for AY 2015-16.

The petitioner, a non-resident Indian residing in the United States, received a notice under Section 148A(b) via speed post at his Delhi address, which was managed by domestic staff. The notice granted 8 days to respond.

Due to his absence from India, the petitioner sought an extension via email, but:

  • The e-portal was closed prematurely, and
  • The request for extension was not considered. 

Issues Involved

  1. Whether passing an order under Section 148A(d) without granting reasonable opportunity violates natural justice.
  2. Whether premature closure of the e-portal invalidates the reassessment proceedings.
  3. Whether communication via email must be considered by the Assessing Officer.

Petitioner’s Arguments

  • The order was passed in violation of natural justice, without adequate opportunity to respond.
  • The 8-day period was insufficient, especially since the petitioner was abroad.
  • The e-portal was closed before expiry of the response period, making compliance impossible.
  • The Assessing Officer failed to consider the email request for extension, despite email being an accepted mode of communication.
  • Notice was not sent via email despite prior communication through the same channel.

 Respondent’s Arguments


  • The petition was not maintainable due to alleged suppression of facts regarding service of notice.
  • Notice was claimed to have been served earlier via speed post.
  • The Assessing Officer contended that emails are not reviewed, and only responses uploaded on the portal are considered.
  • It was admitted that:
    • Notice was not sent via email, and
    • The e-portal was closed on 26.03.2022.

Court’s Findings

  • Even if notice was served earlier, the response period had not expired when the portal was closed, making the action arbitrary.
  • The petitioner being a non-resident required reasonable time to respond.
  • The Assessing Officer’s refusal to consider email communication was untenable, as email is an established communication mode.
  • The order was passed in haste and in violation of natural justice.

The Court relied on the precedent in:

  • Divya Capital One Pvt. Ltd. vs ACIT (Delhi High Court)

Court Order / Decision

  • The impugned:
    • Order under Section 148A(d), and
    • Notice under Section 148
      were quashed.
  • Matter remanded to Assessing Officer with directions:
    • Provide 2 weeks to file reply
    • Pass a fresh reasoned order within 8 weeks
    • Re-open the e-portal for filing response
  • No opinion expressed on merits; rights of parties kept open.

Important Clarifications

  • Email communication is a valid and binding mode between assessee and department.
  • Authorities must ensure reasonable opportunity, especially for non-residents.
  • Mechanical or hurried orders under Section 148A(d) are liable to be quashed.

Sections Involved

  • Section 148 – Income Escaping Assessment
  • Section 148A(b) – Opportunity before issuance of notice
  • Section 148A(d) – Order after considering reply
  • Principles of Natural Justice

Link to download the order -https://delhihighcourt.nic.in/app/case_number_pdf/2022:DHC:2142-DB/MMH27052022CW60662022_112632.pdf

Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.