2025 (5) TMI 1590 - HC - Income Tax

Validity of Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - non service of proper notice - notice is issued in name of the assessee but not served - HELD THAT - There is no justification given in the order disposing the objection for service of the notice in name of other assessee. Merely because the notice is issued in name of the assessee but not served cannot be considered as an effective issuance and service of notice for reopening of the assessment. Therefore in absence of any notice issued and served upon the assessee the respondent cannot be said to have assumed the jurisdiction to reopen the assessment for the Assessment Year 2016-17. Assessee appeal allowed.

Summary

ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

1. Whether the notice issued under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter 'the Act') proposing to reopen the assessment for the Assessment Year 2016-17 was valid and legally served upon the petitioner, given that the notice received by the petitioner was in the name of a different person with a different PAN number.

2. Whether the reassessment proceedings initiated by the respondent without valid service of notice under section 148 of the Act can be sustained.

3. The effect of a technical glitch in the Income Tax Portal causing issuance and service of a notice in the name of another person instead of the petitioner.

4. The legal consequences of non-service or invalid service of notice under section 148 on the jurisdiction of the Income Tax Department to reopen assessment.

ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1: Validity and Service of Notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act

The legal framework governing reopening of assessments is contained in section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which mandates issuance of a valid notice to the assessee proposing to reopen the assessment on grounds of escapement of income. Valid service of such notice is a condition precedent to the exercise of jurisdiction by the Assessing Officer (AO).

Precedents emphasize strict compliance with procedural requirements, including correct issuance and service of notice in the name of the correct assessee identified by PAN. The Court considered the petitioner's contention that the notice dated 31.03.2021 was addressed to "Mrs. Giraben Atulbhai Shah" bearing PAN ALHPS1801P, whereas the petitioner's PAN is ACJPV1280C. The petitioner did not respond to this notice, asserting it was not served upon him. Only upon receipt of a subsequent notice under section 142(1) did the petitioner file a return to comply with procedural requirements.

The respondent contended that the notice under section 148 was duly issued in the name of the petitioner (PAN ACJPV1280C) with proper approval and reasons recorded for reopening, but due to a "technical glitch" in the Income Tax Portal, the notice served was incorrectly addressed to another person. The respondent relied on the affidavit stating that the assessment proceedings were carried out correctly under the petitioner's PAN and that the reopening was justified by information flagged on the INSIGHT portal indicating escapement of income.

The Court noted that the order disposing of the petitioner's objections by the respondent rejected the petitioner's claim on the ground that the notice was indeed issued and served to the petitioner, but this finding was contrary to the record, which showed the notice served was in the name of another person. The Court held that mere issuance of a notice in the name of the petitioner, without actual service upon him, cannot be equated with valid service.

Issue 2: Jurisdiction of the AO to Reopen Assessment in Absence of Valid Notice

The Court examined whether the AO could assume jurisdiction to reopen the assessment without valid service of the notice under section 148. The principle established by judicial precedents is that jurisdiction to reopen depends on valid issuance and service of notice. Non-service or defective service vitiates the proceedings.

In the present case, the petitioner's objection was that no notice was served in his name, and the notice served was void. The respondent's contention that the notice was issued but served incorrectly due to a technical glitch was not sufficient to cure the defect in service. The Court emphasized that the procedural safeguard of valid notice cannot be bypassed by technical errors in the system.

Therefore, the Court concluded that in absence of valid service of notice under section 148 upon the petitioner, the AO did not acquire jurisdiction to reopen the assessment for the Assessment Year 2016-17.

Issue 3: Effect of Technical Glitch in Income Tax Portal on Validity of Notice

The respondent admitted that the notice served was in the name of another person due to a technical glitch in the Income Tax Portal. However, the respondent maintained that the notice was issued in the name of the petitioner and the reopening was based on valid reasons recorded after independent application of mind.

The Court held that a technical glitch causing issuance and service of notice in the wrong name is not a mere clerical error but a fundamental defect affecting the validity of the notice. The Court reasoned that procedural requirements under the Act must be strictly complied with and the safeguards provided to the assessee, including valid service of notice, cannot be circumvented by technical errors.

Thus, the Court treated the technical glitch as fatal to the validity of the notice and the consequent reassessment proceedings.

Issue 4: Reliance on Precedents and Treatment of Competing Arguments

The petitioner relied on a prior decision of the same Court where a notice under section 148 was quashed for being factually incorrect and invalid. The petitioner argued that if no valid notice was served in his name, reassessment proceedings cannot be sustained.

The respondent argued that the notice was issued and the reopening was justified by information indicating escapement of income and that the technical glitch did not invalidate the proceedings.

The Court analyzed the competing arguments and found the respondent's reliance on issuance without valid service insufficient. The Court underscored the importance of valid service as a jurisdictional requirement and held that the respondent's contention did not cure the defect caused by the technical glitch.

SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

"Merely because the notice is issued in name of the assessee but not served, cannot be considered as an effective issuance and service of notice for reopening of the assessment."

"In absence of any notice issued and served upon the assessee, the respondent cannot be said to have assumed the jurisdiction to reopen the assessment for the Assessment Year 2016-17."

"A technical glitch causing issuance and service of notice in the wrong name is not a mere clerical error but a fundamental defect affecting the validity of the notice."

"The procedural safeguard of valid notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act is a mandatory condition precedent to the exercise of jurisdiction by the Assessing Officer and cannot be bypassed by technical errors."

The Court finally held that the reassessment proceedings initiated by the respondent for the Assessment Year 2016-17 are quashed and set aside due to non-service of valid notice under section 148 of the Act upon the petitioner.