Case Law Details
Srimani Basu Vs ITO & Ors (Bombay High Court)
Bombay High Court recently addressed a petition filed by Srimani Basu against the Income Tax Officer (ITO) and others, concerning notices issued under Sections 148A(b), 148A(d), 148, and 142(1) of the Income Tax Act for the assessment year 2016-2017. Basu challenged these notices, contending that they were not duly served via email or postal mail, rendering the proceedings legally flawed.
Appearing for the respondents, Suresh Kumar, the counsel representing the Income Tax Department, submitted an affidavit stating that Basu had not registered her email address on the e-filing portal. Furthermore, postal authorities had returned the notices with the remark “left,” indicating non-delivery at the address available with the department. Kumar argued that the department had sent the notices to the address on record, thus the petitioner’s grievance was unjustified.
Upon inquiry by the court, Basu’s counsel, Singh, acknowledged that the petitioner had changed her address but had failed to inform the Income Tax Department or update her PAN card details. The court observed that it was the petitioner’s responsibility to notify the department of any change in address. Consequently, the court noted that the non-service of notices could not be attributed to any fault on the part of the tax authorities.
However, considering that the petitioner is an individual and her husband’s employment involves transfers, the court decided to provide an opportunity for a fair hearing. As a result, the bench quashed the order under Section 148A(d) dated March 8, 2023, the notice under Section 148 dated March 9, 2023, and the subsequent notice under Section 142(1) dated September 20, 2023. The court directed the respondents to communicate with the petitioner at her new address and email ID, which were provided to the court. Basu’s counsel accepted the service of the initial notice under Section 148A(b) dated January 24, 2023. The court instructed Basu to file her objections to this notice within four weeks from the date the order is uploaded, and the respondents are to dispose of these objections within the subsequent four weeks. The petitioner will not raise any plea of limitation from January 24, 2023, until the order’s uploading date and the timeframe specified. Additionally, Basu was directed to submit an application to the Income Tax Department to officially record her change of address and email ID. The petition was thus allowed in the terms stated, with no order as to costs.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF BOMBAY HIGH COURT
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The Rule is made returnable immediately at the request and with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.
3. This Petition is filed by the aggrieved Tax Payer challenging the notice under Section 148A(b) dated 24 January 2023, order Section the notice under Section 148A(b) dated 24 January 2023, order Section 148A(d) dated 8 March 2023, consequent notice under Section 148 dated 9 March 2023 and notice under Section 142(1) dated 20 September 2023 for the assessment year 2016-2017.
4. Singh, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the notice under Sections 148A(b), 148A(d) and 148 were not served either on email-id or by postal and, therefore, the proceedings are bad in law.
5. Suresh Kumar, learned counsel for the Respondents relying upon affidavit in reply of one Mr. Kundan P. Janrao, Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(3), Pune states that the Petitioner has not registered her email-id on e-filing portal and further postal authorities returned the notice with the remark “left”. He submits that the notices were sent at the address available with the Income-Tax Department and, therefore, the grievance made by the Petitioner is unwarranted.
6. On a query being raised by the Court, the learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner has changed her address, but same was not informed to the Income-Tax Department and, therefore, the postal authorities may have returned the notices with the remark left. In our view, it was the duty of the Petitioner to inform therefore, the postal authorities may have returned the notices with the remark left. In our view, it was the duty of the Petitioner to inform change about her address to the Income-Tax Department and make necessary changes in the PAN card details. Having not done so, no fault can be attributed to the Respondents on account of non-service of the notices. However, the Petitioner being an individual lady, and her husband being on transferable job by way of giving an opportunity, we husband being on transferable job by way of giving an opportunity, we pass the following order
O R D E R
(i) Order under Section 148A(d) dated 8 March 2023 and notice under Section 148 dated 9 March 2023 and consequent notice under Section 142(1) dated 20 September 2023 for the assessment year 2016-2017 are quashed.
(ii) At the directions of the Court, Petitioner has given following postal address and email-on which the subsequent notices can be Respondents are directed to communicate with the Petitioner on the following address and the email-id given by the Petitioner.
“Srimani Basu,
Flat No.A 1001, SM Vision,
Plot No.166, Sector 9, Ulwe – 410 206 District Raigadh, Maharashtra
Email-id: subroto.basu22@gmail.com”
(iii) Mr. Singh accepts the service of notice under Section 148A(b) dated 24 January 2023. The Petitioner is directed to file her objections to 148A(b) notice within period of four weeks from the date of uploading of the present order and the Respondents are directed to dispose of the objections within a further period of four weeks from the date of filing the objections. Petitioner would not take the plea of limitation starting from 24 January 2023 till the date of uploading the present order and time frame provided in this order.
(iv) The Petitioner is also directed to make necessary application to the Income-Tax Department for incorporating the change of address and the email-id.
7. the Petition is made absolute in above terms. No costs.
Author Bio
