Facts of the Case

The petitioner challenged an order dated 27 March 2023 passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and the consequential initiation of reassessment proceedings for Assessment Year 2016-17. The principal contention was that the show-cause notice dated 15 March 2023 issued under Section 148A(b) had not been served upon the petitioner, thereby denying an opportunity to respond.

The Revenue asserted that the notice was duly served through speed post at the petitioner’s address and uploaded on the relevant electronic portal. The case arose from information indicating cash deposits of ₹53,55,000 in the petitioner’s bank account during the relevant financial year.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether the show-cause notice under Section 148A(b) was validly served upon the petitioner.
  2. Whether absence of service through email constituted violation of principles of natural justice.
  3. Whether the order under Section 148A(d) and consequential reassessment proceedings were liable to be set aside.
  4. Whether the petitioner should pursue alternative statutory remedies instead of invoking writ jurisdiction.

Petitioner’s Arguments

  • The notice under Section 148A(b) was never served upon him.
  • In the absence of service, he was deprived of the opportunity to file a reply.
  • Service through registered email was mandatory, and failure to do so vitiated the proceedings.
  • Consequently, the order under Section 148A(d) and subsequent reassessment action were liable to be quashed as violative of natural justice.

Respondent’s Arguments

  • The notice was duly dispatched by speed post to the petitioner’s recorded address and was delivered.
  • Proof of delivery and postal tracking details were placed on record.
  • The notice and order were also uploaded on the electronic portal.
  • Despite service, the petitioner failed to respond, justifying the order under Section 148A(d).

Court Order / FINDINGS

  • Section 148A(b) requires that an opportunity of hearing be provided through service of notice; it does not mandate service exclusively via email.
  • Service at the petitioner’s correct address through speed post constituted valid service.
  • Principles of natural justice were satisfied once the notice was duly served and an opportunity to respond was available.
  • The petitioner’s challenge based solely on absence of email service was untenable.
  • An assessment order had already been passed, and the petitioner had an efficacious alternative remedy under the Act.

Important Clarification

  • Service of notice under Section 148A(b) is valid if effected at the correct address, even without email service.
  • Principles of natural justice are satisfied when a fair opportunity is provided, not necessarily when a particular mode of service is used.
  • Courts will not entertain writ petitions where effective alternative remedies are available.
  • Procedural challenges cannot be used to defeat lawful reassessment proceedings when substantial compliance is established.

Link to download the order –  https://www.mytaxexpert.co.in/uploads/1772279698_MAHABIRSINGHJOONVsTHEINCOMETAXOFFICERANR..pdf 

Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.