9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2025 (5) TMI 1073 - AT - Income TaxValidity of 143(1) order in absence of prior show cause notice having been issued to the assessee - assessee submitted that no prior intimation was sent to the assessee before making adjustment in the intimation u/s 143(1) - HELD THAT - From the User Profile Administration which has been brought on record by the Revenue it is found that a communication was sent to the assessee on email address [email protected] . Thereafter intimation order dated 24.12.2019 was emailed to the assessee on 26.12.2019 on the same email ID i.e. [email protected] . The assessee has not denied the receipt of intimation order dated 24.12.2019 on this email address. As rightly pointed out by the Revenue when the subsequent intimation u/s. 143(1) of the Act sent to the assessee on this email address was duly received by the assessee it cannot take a plea that the earlier notice for adjustment sent on this email address was not received. A copy of the notice dated 23.03.2019 for the proposed adjustment u/s 143(1)(a) of the Act has also been brought on record by the Revenue. Therefore the contention of the assessee that no prior intimation of the adjustment was given is found to be incorrect. Objection of the assessee is that the email address mentioned in the ITR and email ID on which the communication was sent was different - CPC had all along made all communication with the assessee on the email ID [email protected] only which belonged to the assessee. Therefore the communication regarding proposed adjustment before processing of the return of income sent on this email ID was legally valid intimation. The facts involved in the present case are identical to the facts of A.Y. 2019-20. Therefore following the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal for A.Y. 2019-20 we do not find an y merit in the ground taken by the assessee and the same is dismissed.
1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED
The core legal questions considered by the Tribunal in this appeal were:
2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1: Validity of Intimation under Section 143(1) in Absence of Prior Show Cause Notice Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act empowers the Assessing Officer to make adjustments to the returned income by issuing an intimation to the assessee. Prior to such adjustment, it is a settled principle that the assessee must be given an opportunity of hearing or at least be informed of the proposed adjustments through a show cause notice or prior intimation. Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal examined whether the Revenue had issued any prior intimation or show cause notice before making adjustments under Section 143(1). The Revenue produced evidence in the form of communication records from the Central Processing Centre (CPC), specifically a notice dated 23.03.2019 sent to the assessee's email address "[email protected]" indicating the proposed adjustments under Section 143(1)(a). Further, the intimation order dated 24.12.2019 was sent on 26.12.2019 on the same email address. Key Evidence and Findings: The User Profile Administration records confirmed that the notice for proposed adjustments was sent to the email address "[email protected]". The assessee did not deny receipt of the subsequent intimation dated 24.12.2019 on this email address. The Tribunal held that when the subsequent intimation was received by the assessee on the same email, the plea that the earlier notice was not received was untenable. Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal applied the principle that valid communication of any notice or intimation is essential for the exercise of power under Section 143(1). Since the Revenue demonstrated that the prior intimation was indeed sent to the assessee's registered email address, the requirement of prior notice was fulfilled. Treatment of Competing Arguments: The assessee contended that no prior intimation was received and hence the Section 143(1) order was invalid. The Revenue rebutted this by producing documentary evidence of the notice sent via email. The Tribunal favored the Revenue's evidence, noting the absence of any denial by the assessee regarding receipt of the later intimation on the same email address. Conclusions: The Tribunal concluded that the contention of the assessee that no prior intimation was given was incorrect and dismissed this ground. Issue 2: Validity of Communication on an Email Address Different from that Mentioned in the ITR Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The issue of valid service of notice or intimation electronically depends on whether the email address used is the one registered with the Department and belongs to the assessee. The Tribunal relied on its earlier decision in the assessee's own case for Assessment Year 2019-20, where this identical issue was adjudicated. Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The assessee's ITR mentioned the email address as "[email protected]," whereas the notices were sent to "[email protected]." The Tribunal noted that the Revenue's records, including the Ministry of Corporate Affairs website, showed "[email protected]" as the primary email address registered with the Department and belonging to the assessee. Key Evidence and Findings: The Tribunal relied on the prior ruling by a co-ordinate bench in the assessee's own case for A.Y. 2019-20, which held that communication sent on "[email protected]" was valid since it was the primary email address registered with the Department and linked to the assessee. Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal applied the principle that service of notice or intimation on the email address registered with the Department and belonging to the assessee constitutes valid service, notwithstanding a different email address mentioned in the ITR. Treatment of Competing Arguments: The assessee argued that since the email address in the ITR was different, the communication on "[email protected]" was invalid. The Revenue countered by proving that the latter email was the registered and primary email address. The Tribunal upheld the Revenue's position. Conclusions: The Tribunal found no merit in the assessee's objection and dismissed this ground, following the precedent set by the co-ordinate bench. 3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS The Tribunal held unequivocally that:
The core principles established include:
On the facts, the Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal, holding that the Revenue had complied with the procedural requirements under Section 143(1) of the Act and that the notices sent on the registered email address were valid and effective. The additional legal ground raised by the assessee regarding absence of prior show cause notice was rejected.
|
