TMI Blog2023 (8) TMI 93X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the page that it has been digitally signed, it is inchoate, in the sense that it is not accompanied by a date. The date would have revealed when the digital signatures were appended on the notice. Admittedly, the said notice was never physically delivered to the petitioner/assessee. As such, the fact remains that service of the said notice u/s 148 of the Act was affected on the petitioner only on 16.07.2021 through email, though the limitation period had already expired on 30.06.2021. In the cases titled M/s Vinayak Services Pvt. Ltd . [ 2022 (12) TMI 1424 - DELHI HIGH COURT] ; Pawan Kumar Gupta[ 2023 (2) TMI 1172 - DELHI HIGH COURT] and Usha Gupta [ 2023 (2) TMI 1171 - DELHI HIGH COURT] under similar circumstances, allowed the writ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n vide Finance Act, 2021 w.e.f. 01.04.2021, and now deemed to be notice under section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( the Act ),pursuant to judgment of the Hon ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India vs. Ashish Agarwal [2022] 444 ITR 1 (SC); (b) the letter/ notice dated 13.05.2022 issued by Respondent No. 1 in compliance of the judgment of the Hon ble Apex Court in the case of Ashish Agarwal (supra) and in terms of Instruction No. 1 dated 11.05.2022 issued by Respondent No. 3 communicating the so-called information/ material forming the basis of proceedings under section 148/148A of the Act; (c) the order dated 27.07.2022 passed by Respondent No. 1 [with the prior approval of Respondent No. 2] under section 148A(d), a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tive hearing, the dispute was crystallized vide order dated 02.12.2022 as follows: 2. This writ petition is directed against the notice dated 30.06.2021 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short, Act ]. 2.1 Besides this, challenge is also laid to the notice/letter dated 13.05.2022 issued under Section 148A(b) of the Act and the order dated 27.07.2022 issued under Section 148A(d) of the Act. 2.2 In addition thereto, Instruction No. 1 dated 11.05.2022 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT)/respondent No. 3 which, evidently, has been issued pursuant to the judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in Union of India v. Ashish Aggarwal (2022) 444 ITR 1 (SC), is also assailed. 2.3 There is an o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tice, which is dated 25.03.2021.[See Annexure G , page 145 and 150 of the case file]. 6. In any event, according to Mr Jain, since, as noted above, the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act was served on the petitioner on 16.07.2021, the impugned proceedings are time-barred. 7. The record shows that on two previous occasions, i.e., 10.10.2022 and 21.11.2022, opportunity was given to Mr Maratha to obtain instructions. Obviously, no instructions have been received by Mr Maratha. 8. Issue notice. 8.1. Mr Abhishek Maratha accepts notice on behalf of the respondents (which includes CBDT/respondent No. 3). 9. A counter-affidavit will be filed within three weeks from today. 9.1 Rejoinder thereto, if any, will be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sed to the petitioner; email communication dated 16.07.2021 regarding delivery of the notice under Section 148 of the Act; and a screenshot of the e-filing portal of the Income Tax Department reflecting uploading of the notice 16.07.2021. 7. It would be significant to observe that although the notice dated 30.06.2021 under Section 148 of the Act bears an endorsement at the foot of the page that it has been digitally signed, it is inchoate, in the sense that it is not accompanied by a date. The date would have revealed when the digital signatures were appended on the notice. Admittedly, the said notice was never physically delivered to the petitioner/assessee. As such, the fact remains that service of the said notice under Section 148 of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
