Harish Kumar Anand v. Chief Commissioner Income Tax 1& Ors

$~17 *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+W.P.(C) 4098/2025 and CM APPL. 19049/2025 HARISH KUMAR ANAND .....Petitioner Through:Mr V.K. Sabharwal, Mr R.B. Guptaand Mr Rajiv Kumar, Advocates. versus CHIEF COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX 1& ORS. .....Respondents Through:Mr Shlok Chandra, SSC with MsNaincy Jain, Ms Madhavi Shukla andMr Ujjwal Jain, Advocates. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRUHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIAO R D E R16.05.2025 % 1.The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, impugning anorder dated 29.08.2024 [impugned order] passed under Section 148A(d) ofthe Income Tax Act, 1961 [the Act] holding that it was a fit case forissuance of a notice under Section 148 of the Act in respect of AssessmentYear 2018-19. 2.The impugned order was passed pursuant to a notice dated 09.08.2024issued under Section 148A(b) of the Act, whereby the petitioner was calledupon to show cause why a notice under Section 148 of the Act not be issuedby furnishing a reply along with supporting documents on or before16.08.2024. It is the petitioner’s case that the time afforded to the petitionerwas less than minimum period of seven days. 3.The petitioner had requested for further time to file a reply and submitthe necessary documents. However, the petitioner claims that the said request was not considered and the impugned order was passed. In theaforesaid context, this court had passed the following order on 30.04.2025: “1.The petitioner has filed the present petition impugning anotice dated 29.08.2024 issued under Section 148 of the IncomeTax Act, 1961 [the Act], which was accompanied by an orderdated 29.08.2024 passed under Section 148A(d) of the Act. Thesaid order was passed pursuant to a notice dated 09.08.2024 issuedunder Section 148A(b) of the Act, whereby the petitioner wascalled upon to furnish his response to the said notice on or before16.08.2024. 2.The petitioner contends that the time afforded to the petitionerwas only five working days since 10.08.2024 and 11.08.2024 fellon a Saturday and a Sunday. The petitioner requested for anadjournment and further time to furnish a reply on 16.08.2024.However, the Assessing Officer passed the order withoutgranting any such adjournment. 3.The said averment is disputed by the learned counsel for theRevenue.He states that the petitioner was granted time till22.08.2024 in response to his request. However, the petitionerfailed to furnish any response to the notice issued under Section142A(b) of the Act. 4.The learned counsel has also handed over a screenshot of theITBA Portal. 5.In view of the above, we are prima facie of the view that theimpugned order and the impugned notice cannot be assailed on theground that it had been passed without affording the petitioner anadequate opportunity to respond to the notice issued under Section148A(b) of the Act. 6.In the first instance, the petitioner was afforded seven days’time to file a reply. If the Revenue’s contention is accepted that thepetitioner’s request for further time was acceded to and the samewas communicated through the ITBA portal, the petitioner’s claimwould be rendered unfounded. 7.However, the learned counsel appearing for the petitionerstoutly disputes that the petitioner’s request for adjournment wasacceded to. He disputes that the AO had granted further time by acommunication placed on the portal. In other words, the learnedcounsel disputes the authenticity of the screenshots as handed over by the learned counsel for the Revenue. 8.In the aforesaid circumstances, we consider it apposite todirect the concerned AO to file an affidavit with an advance copyto the learned counsel for the petitioner. 9.Let the same be filed within a period of one week from date.Rejoinder, if any, be filed before the next date of hearing. 10.List on 13.05.2025.” 4.As is apparent from the above, the controversy is in a short compass –whether the petitioner was informed that its request for further time to file areply to notice issued under Section 148A(b) had been accepted. by the learned counsel for the Revenue. 8.In the aforesaid circumstances, we consider it apposite todirect the concerned AO to file an affidavit with an advance copyto the learned counsel for the petitioner. 9.Let the same be filed within a period of one week from date.Rejoinder, if any, be filed before the next date of hearing. 10.List on 13.05.2025.” 4.As is apparent from the above, the controversy is in a short compass –whether the petitioner was informed that its request for further time to file areply to notice issued under Section 148A(b) had been accepted. 5.The learned counsel for the Revenue has also handed over ascreenshot from the portal, which bears the following remarks: “As the matter is time barring in nature your case is beingadjourned to 22.08.2024 for submitting full and final replyalongwith supporting documentary evidences. It may also benoticed that no further adjournment will be provided and actionwill be initiated as per the provision of Income Tax Act, 1961.” 6.However, the Revenue has not controverted the petitioner’s claim thatthe said remarks were not communicated to him. The learned counselappearing for the Revenue states, on instructions, that due to a technicalglitch, the remarks as noted above, were not visible to the petitioner on itsportal. And, therefore, the matter may be remanded to the Assessing Officer for consideration afresh. 7.In view of the above, the present petition is allowed. The impugnedorder is set aside. 8.Consequently, the impugned notice under Section 148 of the Act andthe proceedings initiated pursuant to the said notice, are also set aside. Thepetitioner may respond to the notice dated 09.08.2024 issued under Section148A(b) of the Act within a further period of two weeks from date. The AO shall consider the same and pass an appropriate order in accordance withlaw. 9.The petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms. The pendingapplication is also disposed of. VIBHU BAKHRU, J MAY 16, 2025RK TEJAS KARIA, J Click here to check corrigendum, if any