Jagriti Sharma, Through Her Authorized Representativemrs.megha Munshi v. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Jhunjhunu

[2025:RJ-JP:7144-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6079/2023 Jagriti Sharma, Through Her Authorized RepresentativeMrs.Megha Munshi, D/o Sh. Romesh Munshi, Aged 43 Years R/o6210 Ground Floor, Dlf Phase 4, Gurugram, Haryana 122002 ----Petitioner Versus 1. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Jhunjhunu Having Its AddressAt Behind Collectorate, Mandawa Road, Jhunjhunu333001At Behind Collectorate, Mandawa Road, Jhunjhunu333001 2. Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department, Having ItsOffice At Room No. 401, 2[nd] Floor, E-Ramp, JawaharlalNehru Stadium, Delhi-110003.Office At Room No. 401, 2[nd] Floor, E-Ramp, JawaharlalNehru Stadium, Delhi-110003. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Siddharth Ranka withMr.Rohan ChatterFor Respondent(s): Mr.Sandeep Pathak HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR 18/02/2025 Order 1.This petition is filed seeking quashing of the proceedingsinitiated under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short‘the Act’) for the Assessment Year 2018-2019 and consequentialproceedings thereto. 2.The brief facts are that the petitioner is a non-residentIndian. On the basis of the information of a transaction entered bythe petitioner with regard to immovable property, proceedings u/s148 of the Act were initiated by issuance of show cause notice (forbrevity, ’SCN’) dated 14.03.2022u/s 148A(b) of the Act. 3.The limited dispute in the present case is with regard toservice of the SCN. 4.As per the department SCN was served through an E-mailaddress the case set up by thepetitioner is that E-mail address is not of the petitioner. 5.Learned counsel for the respondents sought time to haveinstructions as to wherefrom the E-mail . Counsel produced the generalinformation collected online by the department wherein this E-mailfinds mention. However, there is nothing on record wherefrom thisdata was collected nor any document filed/filled by the petitionerhas been produced wherein this E-mail address was mentioned. 6.At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner oninstructions fairly states that the matter be remitted back todecide afresh the objections to the notice issued under Section148A(b) of the Act and the ground of limitation shall not be raised.7.Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the noticewas sent on the e-mail address as depicted in the generalinformation by the Department. 8.Inspite of granting opportunity to the department, nodocument has been produced to substantiate that service of theSCN was valid or that the petitioner had provided the e-mailaddress to the department. The order passed under Section148A(b) is quashed. The matter is remitted back to therespondent No.1 to proceed in accordance with law in pursuanceto the SCN. The petitioner, as stated above, shall not raiseobjection of limitation. 9. In order to avoid further delay and complications, let thepetitioner through his representative appear in the office ofrespondent No.1 on 18.03.2025 at 11:00 A.M. 10. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. (ASHUTOSH KUMAR),J (AVNEESH JHINGAN),J Monika/Tanisha/37 Whether Reportable:No