2025 (4) TMI 1655 - HC - Income Tax

Validity or reopening of assessment - right of the Petitioners to approach this Court against the notice u/s 148 on the ground that the impugned proceedings are without jurisdiction - Petitioners submitted that the impugned notice dated 31 March 2021 was issued only on 1 April 2021 HELD THAT - Respondents invited our attention to the notice dated 31 March 2021 at Exhibit-B. Apart from the fact that this notice is dated 31 March 2021 there is an endorsement that it was digitally signed on 31 March 2021 at 06 21 pm. Respondents explained that the notice was sent out on 31 March 2021 itself but on account of traffic in the system it might have reached the Petitioner the next date at 06 59 am. As submitted that in such circumstances the bar of limitation is not attracted. Regards the non-disposal of objections we have perused the Petitioners communication dated 12 August 2021 in which a vague objection about the notice being issued beyond the prescribed period of limitation has been raised. There is no elaborations and there are no other objections raised. We are satisfied that no case is made out to entertain this Petition and the interest of justice would be met if by keeping open all contentions of all parties the Petitioners are relegated to the alternate remedy of Appeal. We do so accordingly. If the Petitioners institute an Appeal within four weeks from the date of uploading of this order then the Appellate Authority should due consideration to the fact that this Petition was initiated on 22 April 222 and was pending in this Court to date. Petition is disposed of with liberty in the above terms.

Summary

Summary:The Bombay High Court addressed a petition challenging the Assessment Order dated 29 March 2022, which the Petitioners acknowledged was appealable. The Petitioners sought to question the jurisdiction of the notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act dated 31 March 2021, alleging it was issued beyond the prescribed period. The Court noted the notice was digitally signed on 31 March 2021 and explained any delay in receipt was due to system traffic, thus not attracting limitation bars. The Petitioners' objections were vague and lacked elaboration. The Court held that "no case is made out to entertain this Petition" and relegated the Petitioners to the "alternate remedy of Appeal." The Court allowed the Petitioners four weeks to file an appeal and directed the Appellate Authority to consider the pendency of the petition. The petition was disposed of with liberty to appeal and no costs awarded.