Chitra Supekar Vs ITO (Bombay High Court)
The Bombay High Court in Chitra Supekar vs Income Tax Officer examined the validity of reassessment proceedings initiated under Sections 148A(b), 148A(d), and 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for Assessment Year (AY) 2018–19. The petitioner challenged three actions by the Revenue: (i) the notice dated 20 March 2022 issued under Section 148A(b), (ii) the order dated 5 April 2022 passed under Section 148A(d), and (iii) the reopening notice dated 13 April 2022 issued under Section 148. The challenge was primarily on two grounds — improper service of notice and lack of approval from the competent authority under Section 151(ii).
Facts of the case
The petitioner, a housewife assessed as an individual, did not file her income tax return for AY 2018–19 as her income was below the taxable limit. She held joint bank accounts with her husband through which investments were made, and the related income was declared in her husband’s returns. On 13 April 2022, she received a notice under Section 148 seeking to reopen her assessment. In response, she filed a return on 29 April 2022, declaring a total income of ₹5,000 for AY 2018–19.
The petitioner contended that the earlier notice dated 20 March 2022 under Section 148A(b) had never been served on her as it was sent to her old address. Her address had been updated in the income tax records on 10 January 2021, which was evidenced by the ITR acknowledgment. Because the notice was not validly served, she was denied an opportunity to respond or be heard before the order dated 5 April 2022 was passed ex parte under Section 148A(d). She relied on the decisions of CIT vs Eshaan Holding (P) Ltd. and CIT vs Avtar Singh, which held that reassessment proceedings are invalid in the absence of valid service of notice.
