Nitin Jain Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi)
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Delhi, has allowed the appeal of Nitin Jain, quashing the reassessment order passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 147 read with Sections 144 and 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2014-15. The primary reason for quashing the order was the invalid service of the jurisdictional notice issued under Section 148 of the Act.
The assessee argued that the notice under Section 148, dated March 30, 2021, was never communicated to him at the correct email ID ([email address removed]) which was available on the records of the Income Tax Department. Instead, the notice was sent electronically to an unrelated email ID ([email address removed]). The assessee supported this claim with screenshots from the e-filing portal and the ITBA system, as well as a copy obtained through an RTI application from the department. These pieces of evidence distinctly showed that the notice was transmitted to the incorrect email address.
The assessee further demonstrated that the correct email ID ([email address removed]) was indeed on the department’s records, as evidenced by a processing intimation under Section 143(1) dated November 26, 2020, which was sent to this correct email address, just four months prior to the issuance of the disputed Section 148 notice. This correct email ID was also present in the last Income Tax Return (ITR) filed by the assessee for Assessment Year 2020-21, filed on January 20, 2021, approximately two months before the notice was issued. The assessee also pointed out that even the originally filed ITR for Assessment Year 2014-15 contained a different email ID ([email address removed]), which was also not the email ID where the Section 148 notice was served.
The assessee contended that this service was not in accordance with Section 282 read with Rule 127 of the Income Tax Rules. Furthermore, no physical or postal communication of the notice was made. The assessee only became aware of the reassessment proceedings when a notice under Section 142(1), dated December 24, 2021, was sent to his correct email ID. Earlier notices under Section 142(1) were also sent to the incorrect email ID.
The ITAT relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Suman Jeet Agarwal vs. ITO, which held that when notices are sent to unrelated email addresses, the date the assessee first views the notice on the e-filing portal is considered the date of issuance. In this case, the assessee only became aware of the notice after April 1, 2021. The Tribunal noted the absence of any rebuttal from the Revenue regarding the incorrect service of the notice or any alternative mode of communication.
Considering the factual evidence presented by the assessee and the legal precedent, the ITAT found merit in the argument that a reassessment order framed based on a Section 148 notice that was never validly served is non-est and bad in law. Consequently, the Tribunal quashed the reassessment order and did not find it necessary to address the other legal aspects or the merits of the additions made. The appeal of the assessee was allowed.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT DELHI
