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
