The Assessing Officer (AO) sent a reopening notice electronically to an assessee-company for the relevant year using the email address included in its ITR-6 filed for assessment year 2020-21. The assessee challenged the notice on the ground that it was not served as per the provisions of section 282 of the Income-tax Act. The assessee had not filed its income tax returns for the relevant assessment year 2018-19 and for assessment year 2021-22, and the ITR was only available for assessment year 2020-21, which contained one email address. The communication could have been delivered or transmitted electronically to any of the email addresses, considering the strict timeline stipulated for a preliminary enquiry under section 148A before reopening assessment proceedings.
The AO had also posted the notice on the dedicated account of the assessee on the Income-tax Portal as per section 282. The assessee could not make out a case that the address on which the notice under section 148A(2)(b) was sent was not the one in the ITR furnished by the assessee to which the communication related. Therefore, the revenue could not be blamed for sending an email notice on the address indicated in ITR 2020-21.
The court noted that the interference on such issues at this stage, when facts and documents on record did not substantiate the contention of the assessee, was wholly uncalled for. Therefore, the petition filed by the assessee was to be dismissed. The court ruled in favour of the revenue.
The case of Prakash Kumar Pasari v. Union of India (2022) 143 taxmann.com 397 (Jharkhand) dealt with the reopening of assessment proceedings for the assessment year 2018-19. The AO sent the reopening notice electronically to the email address provided in the ITR-6 for assessment year 2020-21 since the assessee had not filed returns for the relevant years, except for assessment year 2020-21. The notice was also posted on the dedicated account of the assessee on the Income-tax Portal as per section 282.
The assessee challenged the notice on the ground that it was not served as per the provisions of section 282 of the Income-tax Act. The court noted that the assessee had not filed returns for the relevant years, except for assessment year 2020-21. Since the ITR for the relevant year was not available, the communication could have been delivered or transmitted electronically to any of the email addresses provided by the assessee.
The court observed that the assessee could not make out a case that the address on which the notice was sent was not the one in the ITR furnished by the assessee to which the communication related. Therefore, the revenue could not be blamed for sending an email notice on the address indicated in ITR 2020-21.
The court further noted that interference on such issues at this stage, when the facts and documents on record did not substantiate the contention of the assessee, was wholly uncalled for. Therefore, the petition filed by the assessee was to be dismissed, and the court ruled in favour of the revenue.
In conclusion, the court held that the revenue was justified in issuing the reopening notice electronically to the email address provided in the ITR-6 for assessment year 2020-21, as the assessee had not filed returns for the relevant years except for assessment year 2020-21. The court also noted that the assessee could not make out a case that the address on which the notice was sent was not the one in the ITR furnished by the assessee to which the communication related. Therefore, the court dismissed the petition filed by the assessee.
