Case Law Details
Praveen Kumar Vs ITO (Madras High Court)
The Madras High Court recently made a ruling in the case of Praveen Kumar Vs. ITO, setting a significant precedent regarding the issuance of notices under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act. The court held that a second notice under section 148 of Income Tax Act need not be issued, if the service of notice under Section 148 on the petitioner is already been completed even at first instance means.
In the case, the petitioner, Mr. Praveen Kumar, challenged the order of re-assessment on the grounds that the notice under Section 148 was not issued/served in the appropriate manner. The petitioner had not filed a return of income for the assessment year (AY) 2012 – 13, either original or in compliance with notice under Section 148, nor did he respond to the notices sent.
However, the court found that the notice under Section 148, sent on 30.03.2019, was duly documented in the postal register, thus confirming the service completion. Another notice was sent on 31.07.2019, received by ‘A.Lakshmi,’ whose identity was questioned by the petitioner. However, the court ruled that this was irrelevant as the first notice had already been served.
The Madras High Court dismissed the petition, ruling that a second notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act was not necessary if the first notice was already served. The court further stated that if the petitioner files an appeal within two weeks, it will be entertained by the Registry of the first Appellate Authority without reference to limitation but ensuring compliance with all other aspects.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
The petitioner has challenged an order of re-assessment passed under the provisions of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 which is dated 28.11.2019 passed ex-parte under Section 144 read with Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘Act’). The sole ground of challenge is that notice under Section 148 has not been issued / served in a manner as contemplated under the Act and thus order of assessment is itself liable to be quashed.
2. The petitioner, admittedly, was residing at ‘No.11A, Narayanandass Street, Kamaraj Nagar, Pondicherry 605 001’ (address 1). He had shifted to ‘No.21, 9th Cross Street Extension West, Rainbow Nagar, Puducherry’ (address 2). He alleges that notice under Section 148 has not been issued to either address.
3. However, summons issued on 28.09.2019 has been duly served on 28.09.2019 and final hearing notice dated 08.11.2019 has been served on him on 16.11.2019 and learned counsel for petitioner agrees, the petitioner has well received. The petitioner has not filed a return of income for assessment year (AY) 2012 – 13, either original or in compliance with notice under Section 148, nor has he responded to the notices sent.
4. Records were called for and they reveal the following events as supported by documents. Notice under Section 148 of the Act dated 29.03.2019 has been issued on 30.03.2019. There is an entry in the postal register in support of this. The unserved cover was returned by the postal authorities on 13.04.2019 and there is an endorsement to that effect by the authority which is placed on record. The postal authority has written the new address i.e., address 2, on the returned cover. With this, service is complete.
5. However, over enthusiastically and by way of abundant caution, the notice under Section 148 has been sent yet again on 31.07.2019 and this has been received by one ‘A. Lakshmi’ on 31.07.2019. According to petitioner, there is nobody by that name in that address. However, this is really irrelevant, since service of notice under Section 148 on the petitioner is already been complete even at first instance.
6. That apart, notices had been repeatedly issued even thereafter and admittedly served on the petitioner to which the petitioner has not bothered to respond. Thus, I find no infirmity in the impugned order of assessment both in regard to the procedure followed by the officer or as far as service of notice is concerned.
This writ petition is thus dismissed, though with liberty.
7. The petitioner seeks time to file statutory appeal and is granted two weeks from today for such purpose. Appeal, if filed within the period as aforesaid, shall be entertained by the Registry of the first Appellate Authority without reference to limitation but ensuring compliance with all other aspects. Interim protection granted pending writ petition is vacated. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
Author Bio
