Facts of the Case

The petitioner challenged a notice dated 30.03.2019 issued under Section 148 for Assessment Year 2014–15 and sought quashing of all consequential proceedings. It was contended that the reassessment proceedings were barred by limitation under Section 153(2) and that the assessment order dated 12.12.2019 had not been served upon the petitioner.

During proceedings, the respondents produced the assessment order, notice of demand, and penalty notice, claiming service through speed post. The petitioner disputed this, arguing that the consignment details were unverifiable and questioned why the order was not uploaded on the e-proceedings portal.

 Issues Involved

  1. Whether the reassessment proceedings were barred by limitation under Section 153(2) of the Income Tax Act.
  2. Whether non-service or improper service of the assessment order vitiates the proceedings.
  3. Whether disputed factual issues can be adjudicated in a writ petition under Article 226.

Petitioner’s Arguments

  • The notice under Section 148 was issued beyond the prescribed limitation period.
  • The assessment order dated 12.12.2019 was never served.
  • The alleged speed post service could not be verified through postal records.
  • The proceedings were conducted electronically, yet the order was not uploaded on the portal.
  • There was suspicion that the assessment order was ante-dated to overcome limitation.

Respondent’s Arguments

  • The assessment order, demand notice, and penalty notice were duly issued and served via speed post.
  • Documents were produced before the Court evidencing issuance of notices.
  • The petitioner has an alternative statutory remedy by way of appeal under the Income Tax Act.

 Court’s Findings / Order

  • The Court observed that the issues raised involve disputed questions of fact, particularly regarding service and limitation.
  • Such disputes are not suitable for adjudication under writ jurisdiction.
  • The Court noted that the primary grievance (non-supply of assessment order) had already been addressed.
  • The writ petition was dismissed, granting liberty to the petitioner to avail statutory remedies under the Act.
  • The Court clarified that it did not express any opinion on merits of the case.

Important Clarification by Court

  • Writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked where disputed factual issues require examination.
  • Availability of alternative statutory remedy is a key factor for dismissal of writ petitions in tax matters.
  • Supply of assessment order cures the grievance relating to non-service at the writ stage.

Link to download the order -https://delhihighcourt.nic.in/app/case_number_pdf/2021:DHC:2816-DB/NAC10092021CW91012021_160309.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.