Anil Kumar Mehta Vs ITO (Bombay High Court)
In Anil Kumar Mehta vs Income Tax Officer (ITO), the Bombay High Court addressed procedural issues surrounding notices under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner challenged an order dated April 4, 2022, under Section 148A(d) and a subsequent notice dated April 5, 2022, under Section 148. The core contention was the short response period: a notice dated March 21, 2022, was received only on March 28 via Speed Post, leaving the petitioner just one day to respond before the March 29 deadline. The respondent’s counsel, Mr. Khanchandani, acknowledged the procedural irregularity and suggested remanding the matter for reconsideration, allowing the petitioner more time to respond. Accepting this suggestion, the court quashed both the April 4 order and the April 5 notice, remanding the case for de novo consideration. The petitioner was directed to submit a reply by March 8, 2024, while the assessing officer is to issue a reasoned order after providing a personal hearing by April 30, 2024, with proper advance notice. The court’s decision underscores the importance of adhering to procedural fairness in issuing notices.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF BOMBAY HIGH COURT
1. Petitioner is impugning an order dated 4th April 2022 passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) and the notice dated 5th April 2022 issued under Section 148 of the Act.
