Cognizance Constructions Private Limited Vs. ITO (ITAT Hyderabad)
The key issue in this appeal relates to validity of notice u/s 148 & its date of issuance, which determines whether reassessment is within limitation. Assessee argued that the notice was not validly served, as it was claimed to be sent via email to an incorrect/irrelevant email ID as well as by speed post, but Assessee never received it. Assessee further contended that actual service, dispatch details & delivery status must be verified before treating the notice as validly issued.
Tribunal referred to the landmark judgment of Delhi High Court in Suman Jeet Agarwal, which laid down detailed principles regarding determination of the “date of issuance” of notice u/s 148 based on different categories—digitally signed, email service, portal upload without alert, & manual dispatch through post. The Court held that in cases of manual dispatch (speed post), the relevant date is the date & time when the notice was delivered to the post office for dispatch, not when it was prepared or signed. If the notice is treated as issued after 01.04.2021, then in view of the Supreme Court judgment in Ashish Agarwal, it must be treated as notice u/s 148A(b).
In the present case, Tribunal observed that although AO claimed dispatch of notice, Assessee disputed actual service. Since the status of speed post (date of handover to post office) can be verified only from postal records, Tribunal held that this factual verification is necessary to decide the validity of notice. Tribunal also noted that CIT(A) had already remanded the matter on merits for fresh assessment due to lack of proper service & violation of natural justice, as notices were sent to an email ID of an ex-accountant who left in 2020.
