Facts of the Case

The petitioner, InterGlobe Aviation Limited, challenged a notice dated 30 March 2022 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner also sought restraint against further proceedings pursuant to the said notice.

Prior to this, a notice dated 11 March 2022 was issued under Section 148A(b), requiring the petitioner to submit a response by 17 March 2022. On 17 March 2022, the petitioner requested an extension of fifteen days to file its reply and subsequently submitted a detailed response on 29 March 2022.

However, the respondent authority passed an order dated 30 March 2022 stating that no reply had been filed by the petitioner and proceeded to issue the reassessment notice.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether the Assessing Officer erred in passing the order under Section 148 without considering the petitioner’s reply dated 29 March 2022.
  2. Whether the request for extension of time should be interpreted from the date of request or from the original notice date.
  3. Whether the reassessment notice issued under Section 148 was legally sustainable in light of procedural lapse.

Petitioner’s Arguments

  • The petitioner contended that it had duly sought an extension of fifteen days on 17 March 2022 to file its response.
  • It was argued that the detailed reply was submitted within the extended period, i.e., on 29 March 2022.
  • The respondent failed to consider the reply and wrongly recorded that no response had been filed.
  • The reassessment proceedings were thus initiated in violation of principles of natural justice.

Respondent’s Arguments

  • The respondent submitted that the petitioner had requested fifteen days’ time from the date of notice (11 March 2022).
  • It was implied that the reply filed on 29 March 2022 was beyond the permissible time frame.

Court’s Findings / Order

  • The Court held that the request for fifteen days’ extension made on 17 March 2022 should be computed from that date and not from the original notice date.
  • Therefore, the petitioner’s reply dated 29 March 2022 was within time.
  • The Court observed that the Assessing Officer failed to consider the reply and incorrectly stated that no response was filed.

Accordingly:

  • The impugned order dated 30 March 2022 and consequential notice under Section 148 were set aside.
  • The matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer to consider the petitioner’s objections in accordance with law within eight weeks.

Important Clarification by Court

  • The Court expressly clarified that it had not adjudicated on the merits of the case.
  • All rights and contentions of the parties were left open.

Sections Involved

  • Section 148 – Income escaping assessment
  • Section 148A(b) – Opportunity of being heard before issuing notice 

Link to download the order -https://delhihighcourt.nic.in/app/case_number_pdf/2022:DHC:1656-DB/MMH28042022CW64052022_100647.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.