Facts of the Case
The Petitioner challenged the order dated 31 March 2022
passed under Section 148A(d) and the consequent notice issued under Section 148
for Assessment Year 2015–16.
The notice under Section 148A(b) dated 17 March 2022 granted
eight days to file a reply. The Petitioner, a non-resident residing in the
United States, received the notice at his Delhi address only on 24 March 2022.
Due to his absence from India, he requested an extension of time via email on
27 March 2022.
However, the e-portal for filing reply was closed prematurely on 26 March 2022, even before expiry of the statutory period. The Assessing Officer proceeded to pass the order without considering the Petitioner’s request or reply.
Issues Involved
- Whether
closing the e-portal before expiry of the statutory reply period violates
Section 148A procedure.
- Whether
failure to consider the assessee’s request for extension amounts to
violation of natural justice.
- Whether
communication via email constitutes valid mode of communication with the
Assessing Officer.
- Whether reassessment proceedings can be sustained when adequate opportunity of hearing is denied.
Petitioner’s Arguments
- The
order was passed in violation of principles of natural justice due to lack
of adequate opportunity.
- The
statutory period of eight days was not effectively granted as the portal
was closed prematurely.
- The
Petitioner, being a non-resident, required reasonable time to access and
collate records.
- A
valid request for extension was sent via email, which was not considered.
- The
Department had previously used email communication, making it a valid
mode.
- Reliance was placed on precedent holding that reasonable opportunity must be granted before passing order under Section 148A(d).
Respondent’s Arguments
- The
petition was not maintainable due to alleged suppression of facts regarding
service of notice.
- The
notice was served earlier than claimed by the Petitioner.
- The
Assessing Officer did not consider the email as it was not uploaded on the
e-portal.
- As a practice, only portal submissions are reviewed for passing orders.
Court’s Findings
- Even
assuming earlier service, the statutory period had not expired when the
portal was closed.
- Premature
closure of the portal was unjustified and illegal.
- The
Petitioner’s status as a non-resident required reasonable accommodation.
- Email
communication is a valid and recognized mode of interaction between
assessee and department.
- The
Assessing Officer cannot ignore emails while simultaneously using email
for official communication.
- The order was passed in haste and in clear violation of principles of natural justice.
Court Order / Decision
- The
impugned order under Section 148A(d) and notice under Section 148 were quashed.
- Matter
remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
- Two
weeks’ time granted to the Petitioner to file reply.
- Assessing
Officer directed to pass a fresh reasoned order within eight weeks.
- E-portal
to be reopened for enabling submission.
- No opinion expressed on merits; rights of parties kept open.
Important Clarifications
- Adequate
opportunity of hearing is mandatory under Section 148A.
- Closure
of response mechanism before expiry of statutory time is impermissible.
- Email
communication is a valid mode and cannot be disregarded arbitrarily.
- Non-resident
assessees must be given reasonable time considering practical constraints.
- Reassessment
proceedings must strictly adhere to procedural safeguards.
Link to download the order -https://delhihighcourt.nic.in/app/case_number_pdf/2022:DHC:2140-DB/MMH27042022CW60662022_112121.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.
0 Comments
Leave a Comment