LAWS(BOM)-2023-2-71

CHITRA SUPEKAR Vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

Decided On February 15, 2023
Chitra Supekar Appellant
V/S
INCOME TAX OFFICER Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition challenges the notice dtd. 20/3/2022 issued u/s 148A(b) of the Act Income Tax Act, 1961 for the AY Assessment Year 2018-19 wherein the case was flagged in accordance with the risk management strategy by the Central Board of Direct Taxes ( "CBDT ") for non-filing of returns and on having information that the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment; it also challenges the impugned order dtd. 5/4/2022 issued under Sec. 148A(d) of the Act principally on the ground that the same requires a separate approval from the PCCIT since it was passed after expiry of three years from the end of the relevant AY 2018-19 i.e. by 31/3/2022 and the notice dtd. 13/4/2022 u/s. 148 of Act seeking to reopen the petitioner's assessment for AY 2018-19

(2.) The petitioner is a housewife, was assessable as an individual under the Act and since she had income below taxable income limits for A.Y. 2018-19 she did not file her return of income as per provisions of sec. 139 of the Act. She held joint bank accounts with her husband through which investments were made and income therefrom were considered in her husband's income tax returns. On 13/4/2022, the petitioner was issued a reopening notice u/s.148 of the IT Act and a response thereto was submitted on 29/4/2022 disclosing a total income of Rs.5,000.00 for A.Y. 2018-19 alongwith the return of income of the same date.

(3.) Mr. Gulabani, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since the petitioner had changed her address, the notice dtd. 20/3/2022 was not received by the petitioner as evinced by postal acknowledgments at Exhibit 'E ' at pages 35 and 35A of the petition. He submitted that the petitioner's changed address was updated on 10/1/2021 with the respondents evinced by the Income tax return (ITR) acknowledgment filed being Exhibit "A colly " to the rejoinder at page 116 and 117 of the petition. Consequently, the petitioner had no opportunity to file a response to the said notice and was deprived of a hearing as contemplated u/s.148A(b), and the order dtd. 5/4/2022 was passed ex parte under Sec. 148A(d). He submitted that since the notice was not validly served, the proceedings are void and in support thereof relied upon the judgments in the case of CIT vs Eshaan Holding (P) Ltd 344 ITR 541 (Delhi High Court) and CIT vs Avtar Singh 304 ITR 333 (Punjab and Haryana High Court) . His challenge to the order dtd. 5/4/2022 was on the ground of sanction i.e. since it was passed after expiry of three years the approval of the PCCIT would have to be taken as contemplated by sec. 151(ii) r.w.s 148(d) of the IT Act and the previous sanction taken from PCIT would not suffice.