Sanjay Thapar v. Income Tax Officer, Circle 49(1

$~S-40 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI +W.P.(C) 14029/2022 SANJAY THAPAR..... Petitioner Through:Mr.VineetBhatia,AdvocatewithDr.Rakesh Kumar, Advocate. versus INCOME TAX OFFICER, CIRCLE 49(1)..... Respondent Through:Mr.Ajit Sharma, Sr.Standing Counselwith Mr.A.Renganath, Advocate. %Date of Decision: 28[th]September, 2022 CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHANHON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA J U D G M E N T MANMOHAN, J (Oral): 1.Present writ petition has been filed challenging the notice issuedunder Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) dated14[th]March, 2022, the Order passed under Section 148A(d) of the Act dated24[th]March, 2022 and the Notice dated 25[th]March, 2022 issued underSection 148 of the Act for the Assessment Year 2018-19. 2.Learned counsel for the Petitioner states that the Respondent vide theimpugned Notice dated 14[th]March, 2022 issued under Section 148A(b) ofthe Act directed the Petitioner to file its response by 23[rd]March, 2022. Hestates that the said impugned notice was received by the Petitioner via email,however, the same was an encrypted file and did not open in the mail. He further states that the Petitioner immediately responded to the email on14[th]March, 2022 stating that the impugned notice attached to the email wasnot accessible. 3.He states that the said impugned notice was received through speedpost only on 17[th]March, 2022, directing the Petitioner to respond by23[rd]March, 2022, thereby providing less than the mandatory statutoryperiod of seven days under Section 148A(b) of the Act. He states that thePetitioner vide the email dated 23[rd]March, 2022 requested for anadjournment. However, the Respondent, without considering the same,passed the impugned order under Section 148A(d) of the Act ex-parte. 4.He states that the Petitioner filed its reply along with annexures byway of email dated 25[th]March, 2022 and also apprised the Respondent thatthe impugned order is bad in law, inasmuch as, the same had been passedwithout giving minimum period of seven days to respond. He, however,states that the Respondent, without considering the same, issued theimpugned Notice under Section 148 of the Act. 5.Learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the decision of this Court in Shri Sai Co-Operative Thrift and Credit Society Ltd. Versus ITO, Ward43-6, WP(C) 7385/2022, wherein it has been held that under Section148A(b) of the Act, a minimum time of seven days has to be granted to theassessee to file its reply to the said show cause notice. 6.Issue notice. Mr.Ajit Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent-revenue, accepts notice. He states that the respondent-revenue has noobjection, if the present matter is remanded back to the Assessing Officer fora fresh decision in accordance with law. 7.Consequently, the impugned order passed under Section 148A(d) of the Act dated 24[th]March. 2022 for the assessment year 2018-19 is set asideand the Assessing Officer is directed to pass a fresh reasoned order withineight weeks in accordance with law after considering the reply of thepetitioner, which is directed to be re-filed within a week. This Court clarifiesthat it has not commented on the merits of the controversy. The rights andcontentions of all the parties are left open. With the aforesaid direction, thepresent writ petition stands disposed of. MANMOHAN, J SEPTEMBER 28, 2022TS MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J