Pattaveettil Parameswar Ramachandran Vs ITO (Kerala High Court)
Conclusion: Reopening of notice under section 148A(b) was valid as assessee was served notices both physically and via email and assessee had been granted sufficient opportunity to respond to the notice however, assessee failed to avail the opportunity granted. Thus, there was no violation of the principles of natural justice and notice was valid.
Held: Assessee had sold an immovable property during the year financial year 2015-16 but he failed to file a return for the assessment year 2016-17. Alleging that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for the said assessment year, a notice under Section 148A(b) was issued by the jurisdictional Income Tax Officer. Assessee filed a response pursuant to the said notice. He also sought further time to file a detailed response and such time was also granted till 13-03-2023. However, since thereafter, there was no response, AO passing an order under section 148(d). Subsequently, proceedings were shifted to the faceless assessment scheme. After the faceless assessment scheme commenced sufficient opportunity was granted to assessee however, assessee did not respond, and thereafter, assessment order was issued by the assessee. It was held that the repeated notices sent to assessee were met with a response once, which itself indicated that assessee was aware of the proceeding. It had been repeatedly held by the Supreme Court and various other High Courts that failure to avail of an opportunity could not be regarded as absence of opportunity. In the instant case, it was evident that assessee had failed to avail the opportunity granted. The contention that he was unaware of the technological mode of serving notices could not be accepted in the facts and circumstances of the case. Hence, there was no violation of principles of natural justice. It was not a fit case for this Court to interfere in the exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
