Monish Gajapati Raju Pusapati Vs Assessment Unit Income Tax Department & Anr. (Delhi High Court)
Delhi High Court held that order passed overlooking the error apparent on the face of the record is invalid since it is non-application of mind of the authority. Hence, order u/s. 148 quashed.
Facts- The Petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, impugning a notice dated 23.03.2024 issued under section 148 of Income Tax Act, 1961 for Assessment Year (AY) 2020-21 as well as an order dated 03.02.2025 whereby the respondents/revenue had disposed of the objections dated 13.09.2024 filed by the petitioner with respect to the assumption of jurisdiction under section 148 of the Act for AY 2020-21.
Petitioner stated that the said notice was issued pursuant to the information collected under section 135A of the Act, which pertains to the transactions entered by some other assessee (Manisha Jain) having a different PAN and having no relation with the petitioner.
Conclusion- Held that while issuing the impugned notice under section 148 of the Act, the respondents by pure inadvertence have annexed/attached the information pertaining to some other individual/assessee and not the petitioner. The said aspect appears to be an error or mistake and neither deliberate nor wilful. On account of such error/mistake or inadvertence, no fatality can be said to attach to the issuance of the impugned notice under section 148 of the Act. However, at the same time, the passing of the impugned order dated 03.02.2025 is absolutely unsustainable in overlooking the error apparent on the face of the It can be safely presumed that the authority did not apply its mind to the objections raised by the petitioner.
