No Fatality Could Be Said to Attach to Issuance of Notice u/s 148 if Info of Some Other Person Was Attached to It | HC
- Blog|News|Income Tax|
- 2 Min Read
- By Taxmann
- |
- Last Updated on 3 March, 2025
Case Details: Monish Gajapati Raju Pusapati vs. Assessment Unit Income-tax Department - [2025] 171 taxmann.com 874 (Delhi)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, CJ. & Tushar Rao Gedela, J.
-
Piyush Kaushik, Adv. for the Petitioner.
-
Abhishek Maratha, SSC, Apoorv Agarwal, Parth Samwal, JSCs, Ms Nupur Sharma, Gaurav Singh, Bhanukaran Singh Jodha & Ms Muskaan Goel, Advs. for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
The Assessing Officer issued a notice under section 148 against the assessee on ground that information was received under section 135A pertaining to the transactions entered by some other assessee (MJ) having a different PAN and having no relation with the assessee.
Assessee filed objections to the reopening of assessment. However, the order rejecting objections of the assessee was passed without considering said error. On writ petition, the assessee submitted that notice was issued in an absolutely misconceived manner, vitiating the procedure laid down under section 148.
The matter was taken to the Delhi High Court.
High Court Held
The Delhi High Court held that it was evident that the AO, by pure inadvertence, had annexed/attached the information pertaining to some other individual/assessee and not the assessee. On account of such error/mistake or inadvertence, no fatality can be said to attach to the issuance of the notice under section 148.
However, the passing of the order was absolutely unsustainable in overlooking the error apparent on the face of the record. It can be safely presumed that the authority did not apply its mind to the objections raised by the assessee.
The Court examined section 292B, which validates proceedings despite mistakes if they align with the Act’s intent. While this provision protects the section 148 notice despite an error in annexed information, it does not save the order. Thus, the Court quashed the order but directed the AO to rectify the notice by providing the correct information from the Insight Portal and Specified Authority within a week, allowing the assessee to respond per law.
List of Cases Referred to
- Benaifer Vispi Patel v. ITO [2024] 165 taxmann.com 5/300 Taxman 248 (Bombay) (para 4).
Disclaimer: The content/information published on the website is only for general information of the user and shall not be construed as legal advice. While the Taxmann has exercised reasonable efforts to ensure the veracity of information/content published, Taxmann shall be under no liability in any manner whatsoever for incorrect information, if any.
Taxmann Publications has a dedicated in-house Research & Editorial Team. This team consists of a team of Chartered Accountants, Company Secretaries, and Lawyers. This team works under the guidance and supervision of editor-in-chief Mr Rakesh Bhargava.
The Research and Editorial Team is responsible for developing reliable and accurate content for the readers. The team follows the six-sigma approach to achieve the benchmark of zero error in its publications and research platforms. The team ensures that the following publication guidelines are thoroughly followed while developing the content:
- The statutory material is obtained only from the authorized and reliable sources
- All the latest developments in the judicial and legislative fields are covered
- Prepare the analytical write-ups on current, controversial, and important issues to help the readers to understand the concept and its implications
- Every content published by Taxmann is complete, accurate and lucid
- All evidence-based statements are supported with proper reference to Section, Circular No., Notification No. or citations
- The golden rules of grammar, style and consistency are thoroughly followed
- Font and size that’s easy to read and remain consistent across all imprint and digital publications are applied