9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (3) TMI 332X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oner-assessee's objection to the notice. 2. It is not in dispute that the notice dated 27.03.2018 was issued by the Revenue on account of the purported failure on the part of the petitioner-assessee to file income tax return qua Assessment Year (AY) 2011-2012. 2.1. Since the petitioner-assessee sought reasons for reopening the case, under Section 147 of the Act vide communication dated 02.04.2018, the reasons were furnished by the Revenue vide communication dated 09.04.2018. 3. Apart from anything else, Mr. Rajesh Mahna, who appears on behalf of the petitioner-assessee, has made two significant submissions. 3.1 First, that the notice under Section 148 of the Act, which, as indicated above, is dated 27.03.2018 was issued prior to the con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m (NMS), put in place by the Income Tax Department. 4.2. Ms. Mujahid says that the aforementioned communication (which was a computer-generated letter) was, consequently, attempted to be served on the petitioner-assessee which, though was returned by the postal department and, thus, left with no option, service was effected on the authorized representative of the petitioner-assessee. 4.3. Ms. Mujahid submits that since no response was received to its communication and the petitioner-assessee's ITR could not be found in the system, the Revenue took the next step, which was, the issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act. 4.4. Ms. Mujahid, however, cannot but accept that since the relevant proof has been placed on record by the petiti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... down under Section 151 of Income Tax Act, 1961 before issuing notice under 148 of Income Tax Act, 1961." 5.2. As far as the other aspect is concerned, in our view, since the proof put in place by the petitioner-assessee with regard to the acknowledgement of return filed for AY 2011-2012 has not been disputed by the Revenue, as noticed above, the challenge to the impugned notice and the impugned order will have to be sustained. 6. Therefore, for the foregoing reasons, we are inclined to quash the impugned notice dated 27.03.2018 as also the impugned order dated 28.09.2018. It is ordered accordingly. 6.1. The Revenue will pay towards cost Rs. 20,000/- to the petitioner-assessee. The costs will be remitted to the petitioner-assessee within ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
