2025 (6) TMI 1717 - HC - Income Tax

Validity of reassessment proceedings - non-service of the show-cause notice u/s 148A(b) on the correct email ID of the petitioner - HELD THAT - As respondent has updated his new Email ID upon which intimation under section 143 (1) has been sent by CPC but the same was not reflected in the ITBA system due to non-updation of the system. Assessee also confirmed that the aforesaid Email ID of the petitioner is correct and is in operation as on today. Considering the above submissions impugned order under section 148A(d) and the notice u/s 148 are hereby quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded back to the respondent No. 3 so as to provide an opportunity to the petitioner-assessee to file a reply to the notice u/s 148A(b) and thereafter give an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass a fresh de novo order under section 148A(d) - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal questions considered by the Court in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are:

• Whether the impugned order dated 28.03.2022 passed under section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter 'the Act') and the notice dated 29.03.2022 issued under section 148 of the Act are valid and legal, given the alleged non-service of the show-cause notice under section 148A(b) on the correct email ID of the petitioner;
• Whether the principles of natural justice were violated due to the petitioner not receiving the notice under section 148A(b) because of incorrect email communication;
• Whether the petitioner was entitled to an opportunity to file a reply to the show-cause notice before the issuance of the impugned order under section 148A(d);
• Whether the impugned order and notice should be quashed and set aside, and the matter remanded for fresh consideration with proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner;
• Whether interim relief restraining the respondents from taking further steps pursuant to the impugned order and notice should be granted pending final disposal of the petition.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1: Validity and legality of the impugned order under section 148A(d) and notice under section 148 of the Act

Relevant legal framework and precedents: Section 148A of the Income Tax Act mandates that before issuing a notice under section 148 (reopening of assessment), the Assessing Officer must issue a notice under section 148A(b) calling upon the assessee to show cause as to why the assessment should not be reopened. The procedure ensures compliance with principles of natural justice by providing the assessee an opportunity to be heard before reopening.

Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court noted that the petitioner had filed its return for AY 2018-19, which was accepted by the Department, and the petitioner had duly intimated its email ID and mobile number to the Department. The impugned show-cause notice under section 148A(b) was issued on 19.03.2022 but was communicated to an incorrect email ID ([email protected]), which was not the email address registered with the Department. Consequently, the petitioner did not receive the notice and was unaware of the proceedings until the impugned order dated 28.03.2022 was sent by post.

Key evidence and findings: The petitioner's assertion regarding non-receipt of the show-cause notice due to incorrect email communication was supported by the fact that the Department's system did not reflect the correct email ID ([email protected]) despite the petitioner having updated it. The respondent's affidavit confirmed that the correct email ID was updated but not reflected in the ITBA system due to non-updation.

Application of law to facts: Since the show-cause notice under section 148A(b) was not effectively communicated to the petitioner, the issuance of the impugned order under section 148A(d) without affording an opportunity to reply violated the procedural safeguards enshrined in the Act and the principles of natural justice.

Treatment of competing arguments: The respondents contended that the correct email ID was updated and that intimation under section 143(1) had been sent by the Centralized Processing Centre (CPC). However, the Court emphasized that the failure of the ITBA system to reflect this updated email ID and consequent non-service of the show-cause notice on the correct email ID deprived the petitioner of the opportunity to respond.

Conclusions: The impugned order dated 28.03.2022 and the notice dated 29.03.2022 are invalid and liable to be quashed as they were passed without adherence to the mandatory procedural requirement of serving the show-cause notice on the correct email ID and providing the petitioner an opportunity to be heard.

Issue 2: Violation of principles of natural justice

Relevant legal framework and precedents: The principles of natural justice require that no person should be condemned unheard. In tax proceedings, this principle mandates that before reopening an assessment, the assessee must be given a reasonable opportunity to respond to the reasons for reopening.

Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court found that since the show-cause notice was not served on the petitioner due to incorrect email communication, the petitioner was denied the opportunity to file a reply or be heard before the issuance of the impugned order. This constituted a breach of natural justice.

Key evidence and findings: The petitioner only became aware of the proceedings upon receipt of the impugned order by post, which was after the show-cause notice period had expired.

Application of law to facts: The failure to communicate the show-cause notice effectively deprived the petitioner of the right to be heard, rendering the impugned order and notice void.

Treatment of competing arguments: The respondents did not dispute the non-service but relied on technical updating issues in the Department's system. The Court held that procedural lapses cannot be allowed to override the fundamental right of the petitioner to be heard.

Conclusions: The principles of natural justice were violated, necessitating quashing of the impugned order and notice and remand for fresh consideration with proper opportunity of hearing.

Issue 3: Whether the petitioner is entitled to file a reply and have a fresh hearing before a de novo order is passed

Relevant legal framework and precedents: Section 148A(d) requires the Assessing Officer to consider the reply of the assessee to the show-cause notice and pass a reasoned order. A fresh order must be passed after providing an opportunity to the assessee to respond.

Court's interpretation and reasoning: Since the petitioner was not given an opportunity to reply to the show-cause notice, the Court directed that the matter be remanded to the Assessing Officer for providing the petitioner an opportunity to file its reply and be heard before passing a fresh order under section 148A(d).

Key evidence and findings: The petitioner's counsel confirmed the correctness and operability of the updated email ID, facilitating proper communication going forward.

Application of law to facts: The Court's direction ensures compliance with statutory procedure and natural justice by allowing the petitioner to participate meaningfully in the proceedings.

Treatment of competing arguments: The respondents did not oppose the remand and opportunity to be heard, acknowledging the procedural lapse.

Conclusions: The petitioner is entitled to file a reply to the show-cause notice and be heard before a fresh order under section 148A(d) is passed.

Issue 4: Grant of interim relief restraining respondents from taking further steps pursuant to the impugned order and notice

Relevant legal framework and precedents: The Court has inherent power under Article 226 to grant interim relief to prevent irreparable harm pending final disposal of writ petitions.

Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court considered the submissions and granted interim relief restraining the respondents from taking any further steps pursuant to the impugned order and notice until the matter is finally decided.

Key evidence and findings: The petitioner's inability to respond due to non-service of notice justified the interim protection.

Application of law to facts: The interim relief preserves the status quo and prevents prejudice to the petitioner during pendency of the petition.

Treatment of competing arguments: The respondents did not oppose the interim relief.

Conclusions: Interim relief was granted restraining further action pursuant to the impugned order and notice.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

The Court held that:

"Considering the above submissions, impugned order dated 28.03.2022 under section 148A(d) and the notice dated 29.03.2022 under section 148 of the Act are hereby quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded back to the respondent No. 3 so as to provide an opportunity to the petitioner-assessee to file a reply to the notice under section 148A(b) and thereafter, give an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass a fresh de novo order under section 148A(d) of the Act."

The Court established the core principle that effective communication of the show-cause notice under section 148A(b) on the correct email ID is mandatory to uphold the principles of natural justice in reopening assessments under the Income Tax Act. Failure to do so invalidates subsequent orders passed without affording the assessee an opportunity to be heard.

Final determinations on each issue are:

• The impugned order and notice are quashed and set aside due to non-service of the show-cause notice on the correct email ID;
• The petitioner's right to be heard was violated, necessitating remand for fresh consideration;
• The petitioner must be given an opportunity to file a reply and be heard before a fresh order under section 148A(d) is passed;
• Interim relief restraining further action pursuant to the impugned order and notice was granted pending final disposal.