Case Law Details
Meenu Chaufla Vs ITO (Delhi High Court)
Court is of the view that the petitioner/assessee has the right to get adequate time in accordance with the Act to submit its reply. It is pertinent to mention that Section 148A(b) permits the Assessing Officer to suo moto provide up to thirty days’ period to an assessee to respond to the show cause notice issued under Section 148A(b), which period may in fact be further extended upon an application made by the Assessee in this behalf, and such period given to the petitioner-assessee is excluded in computing the period of limitation for issuance of notice under Section 148A(d) of the Act in terms of the third proviso to Section 149 of the Act.
In the present case, though the petitioner had filed an application for adjournment immediately after receipt of notice dated 17th March, 2022, the respondent had neither rejected the request for adjournment nor directed the petitioner to file a reply within the original stipulated time.
In the present case, the petitioner had filed its response/submission on 27th March, 2022 by way of an email addressed to the Assessing Officer as the notice under Section 148A(b) had been received from the said email address.
Further, as the impugned order under Section 148A(d) of the Act had been passed after receipt of the said email, this Court is of the view that Assessing Officer should have considered the same as the reply was available on record. By not considering the reply of the Petitioner dated 27th March, 2022, the mandate of Section 148A(c) has been violated as it casts a duty on the Assessing Officer, by using the expression ‘shall’, to consider the reply of the Petitioner/assessee in response to notice under Section 148A(b) before making an order under Section 148A(d) of the Act.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
