LSR Medical Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT (Delhi High Court)
Delhi High Court’s ruling in the case of LSR Medical Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT raises issues regarding the validity of a notice issued under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The court’s decision highlights the importance of including the name and designation of the concerned officer in such notices.
Analysis: The court scrutinized the notice issued under Section 148A(b) of the Act, which required the inclusion of the name and designation of the officer. The petitioner argued that this absence violated the provisions of Section 282A of the Act. Additionally, the court examined the compliance of the notice with the provisions of Instruction No.1/2022 issued by the CBDT.
The court’s analysis focused on the instruction’s provisions, specifically paragraph 7.1 and paragraph 8.1, which outline the procedures for issuing notices under Section 148A(b). The court noted that the notice in question was issued on 02.06.2022 and was served via email on 08.06.2022. However, the petitioner contended that the notice had lost its efficacy after 03.06.2022.
The court upheld the petitioner’s argument, emphasizing that the notice’s validity was compromised due to the missing name and designation of the concerned officer. Additionally, the court set aside the order dated 30.07.2022 issued under Section 148A(d) of the Act.
Conclusion: The Delhi High Court’s ruling in the case of LSR Medical Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT underscores the importance of compliance with statutory requirements while issuing notices under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act. The absence of the concerned officer’s name and designation on the notice rendered it void and non-compliant with the law.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF DELHI HIGH COURT
1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions.
W.P.(C) 5129/2023 & CM No.20046/2023 [Application filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking interim relief]
2. Issue notice.
2.1 Mr Abhishek Maratha, learned senior standing counsel, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents/revenue.
3. In view of the order that we propose to pass, Mr Maratha says that no counter-affidavit is required to be filed in the matter and that he will argue based on the record presently available to the court. Therefore, with the consent of the learned counsels for the parties, the writ petition is taken up for hearing and final disposal at this stage itself.
4. This writ petition concerns Assessment Year (AY) 2015-16.
5. The initial notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short, “Act”] which was issued to the petitioner is dated 30.06.2021.
5.1 The record also shows that pursuant to the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Ashish Aggarwal (2022) 444 ITR 1 (SC), notice dated 02.06.2022 issued under Section 148A(b) of the Act was served on the petitioner via e-mail dated 08.06.2022.
5.2 Learned counsel for the petitioner says that this notice was uploaded on the designated portal only on 09.06.2022.
6. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the notice dated 02.06.2022 issued under Section 148A(b) of the Act, lost its efficacy after 03.06.2022.
6.1 For this purpose, learned counsel for the petitioner not only relies upon the aforementioned judgment of the Supreme Court but also Instruction No.1/2022 dated 11.05.2022 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT). In particular, emphasis is laid on paragraph 7.1 read with paragraph 8.1 of the said instruction. For the sake of convenience, the relevant paragraphs are extracted hereafter:
“7.0 Cases where the Assessing Officer is required to provide the information and material relied upon within 30 days:
7.1 Hon’ble Supreme Court has directed that information and material is required to be provided in all cases within 30 days. However, it has also been noticed that notices cannot be issued in a case for AY 2013-14, AY 2014-15 and AY 2015-16 if the income escaping assessment, in that case for that year, amounts to or is likely to amount to less than fifty lakh rupees. Hence, in order to reduce the compliance burden of assessees, it is clarified that information and material may not be provided in a case for AY 2013-14, AY 2014-15 and AY 2015-16, if the income escaping assessment, in that case for that year, amounts to or is likely to amount to less than fifty lakh rupees. Separate instruction shall be issued regarding procedure for disposing these cases.
8.0 Procedure required to be followed by the Assessing Officers to comply with the Supreme Court judgment:
8.1 The procedure required to be followed by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer/Assessing Officer, in compliance with the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, is as under:
