Bombay High Court has set aside the proceedings initiated by the revenue authorities against the assessee for non-compliance of the reassessment notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on the ground that the notice was served on the secondary email id registered with the PAN database instead of the registered primary email id or the updated email id mentioned by the assessee in its last Return of Income.
While holding that the Assessing Officer had clearly erred in issuing a notice on the secondary email address when there was a primary email address given by the assessee, the bench of Justices Dhiraj Singh Thakur and Kamal Khata held that the proceedings were vitiated due to lack of a valid service of notice on the assessee.
The petitioner/ assessee, Lok Developers, challenged the reassessment notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, the subsequent assessment proceedings and the notice of demand issued against it by the revenue authorities, by filing a writ petition before the Bombay High Court.
The petitioner, Lok Developers, argued that the notice under Section 148 was served on the secondary email id provided in its PAN card instead of the registered primary email id.
The petitioner pleaded that the Income Tax Authorities ought to have issued the Section 148 notice on its registered primary email id or the updated email id mentioned in its last Return of Income.
The revenue department averred that the petitioner had not denied the email id on which it was served the reassessment notice and that the same was registered with the PAN database. It added that it cannot be held responsible for an inactive email id or for the petitioner not updating the email id registered with the PAN database.