Rajesh Soni Huf v. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1)

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7229/2022 Rajesh Soni Huf S/o Ram Charan Soni, R/o 3682, Phuta Khuhrra,Ramganj Bazar, Jaipur, Rajasthan- 302003 Presently Residing At22, Shivaji Colony, Dadu Marg, Brahmpuri, Jaipur, Rajasthan-302002. ----Petitioner Versus Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1) Having Its Address At New CentralRevenue Building, Bhagwan Das Road, C-Scheme, Jaipur. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ramanuj Sharma : Mr. Anuroop Singhi withMr. NS Bhati HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHUWAN GOYAL Order 05/03/2024 1.The only ground on which the order passed under Section148 A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is challenged is that thenotice which was issued to the petitioner, as required underSection 148 A(b) of the Act, did not comply with the statutoryrequirement of seven days. 2.Referring to the aforesaid provision, learned counsel for thepetitioner would urge that seven days clear notice is statutorymandate which was violated. The submission is that though noticeis dated 17.03.2022, it was dispatched only on 19.03.2022 wasreceived by the petitioner on 21.03.2022. An order came to bepassed on 26.03.2022. Therefore, from the aforesaid admitted factual position, it is clear that seven days clear notice was notgiven to the petitioner. 3.Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent would submitthat irrespective of dispatch of notice dated 17.03.2022, a noticewas also sent on the mail address of the petitioner on 17.03.2022itself. Therefore, the notice was received by the petitioner throughhis mail on 17.03.2022 and in view of provisions contained inSection 282 of the Act, that is sufficient compliance of provisionwith regard to service of notice. 4.We find that in the income tax return submitted by thepetitioner, he has declared his mail address as" ". Alongwith the reply of therespondent, the computer generated details of sending of mail tothe petitioner have been annexed, which shows that the addressat which the notice was sent on mail address, is exactly the sameas has been disclosed by the petitioner in his return. 5.Therefore, it is quite clear that on 17.03.2022 itself thepetitioner received the notice. If that be so, the entire case of thepetitioner falls to the ground and no statutory violation is found. 6.The instant petition, therefore, stands dismissed. Pendingapplication, if any, also stands dismissed. (BHUWAN GOYAL),JKamlesh Kumar-RAHUL/55 (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),CJ