TMI Blog2023 (2) TMI 655X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (2) TMI 280 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT ] which held that service of notice under section 148 is a condition precedent for making reassessment or re-computation under section 147 of the Act. In our view, before issuing the notice under section 148A (b) it was imperative for the AO to have checked if there was a change of address. A condition precedent for any proceeding including a proceeding u/s. 148A, is a valid service of notice, lest it would be a jurisdictional error. No averment or proof of the service of notice dated 20th March 2022 on the petitioner in respondent s affidavit in reply dated 14th November 2022. The cascading effect of non-service was the petitioner did not get an opportunity to respond to the notice. Conseq ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... For the petitioner : Mr. Dinesh Ramesh Gulabai. For the respondents : Mr. Ajeet Manwani a/w. Ms. Samiksha Kanani. JUDGMENT : [PER KAMAL R. KHATA, J] 1. The present petition challenges the notice dated 20th March 2022 issued u/s 148A(b) of the Act [Income Tax Act, 1961] for the AY [Assessment Year] 2018-19 wherein the case was flagged in accordance with the risk management strategy by the Central Board of Direct Taxes ( CBDT ) for non-filing of returns and on having information that the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment; it also challenges the impugned order dated 5th April 2022 issued under Section 148A(d) of the Act principally on the ground that the same requires a separate approval from the PCCIT sinc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... earing as contemplated u/s.148A(b), and the order dated 5th April 2022 was passed ex parte under Section 148A(d). He submitted that since the notice was not validly served, the proceedings are void and in support thereof relied upon the judgments in the case of CIT vs Eshaan Holding (P) Ltd 344 ITR 541 (Delhi High Court) and CIT vs Avtar Singh 304 ITR 333 (Punjab Haryana High Court). His challenge to the order dated 5th April 2022 was on the ground of sanction i.e. since it was passed after expiry of three years the approval of the PCCIT would have to be taken as contemplated by section 151(ii) r.w.s 148(d) of the IT Act and the previous sanction taken from PCIT would not suffice. 4. With regard to the impugned notice under 148 dat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... based on suggested information. He further submitted that no enquiry was recorded nor was a hearing granted to the petitioner and thereby the entire process was in excess of jurisdiction, illegal, arbitrary, perverse and in violation of principles of natural justice and consequently the petition deserved to be made absolute. 6. Mr. Manwani, learned counsel on behalf of the respondents contended that the notice u/s. 148A(b) is dated 20 March 2022 and was sent to the petitioner via speed post. He submitted that since the notice was within three years i.e. before 31st March 2022, from the end of the relevant A.Y. 2018-19, the respondents had rightly taken the sanction from the PCIT in accordance with Section 151(i) of the IT Act. He submit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssment or re-computation under section 147 of the Act. 8. In our view, before issuing the notice under section 148A (b) it was imperative for the AO to have checked if there was a change of address. A condition precedent for any proceeding including a proceeding u/s. 148A, is a valid service of notice, lest it would be a jurisdictional error. With regard to, the first notice dated 20th March 2022, it is the case of the petitioner that they had not received any notice dated 20th March 2022 and the revenue contended that it was served through speed post at the last known address. It is evident that though the respondents had the new address of the petitioner as evinced from the ITR filed on 10th January 2021, the respondents chose to send ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
