The Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case Nilam Mantri Versus ITO observed and has imposed the cost for an amount of Rs. 10K on the income tax department and has quashed the order as stated under section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act and the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act.
The bench comprising of Justice G.S. Sandhawalia and Justice Lapita Banerji in the case observed and has stated that the notice issued under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act dated 19.03.2022, for not having been specifically served and the order under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act having been passed thereafter on April 4, 2022, without giving an opportunity, the same would violate the principles of natural justice.
In the present case, the petitioner or assessee has challenged the reassessment notice and order and on the basis of the information available with the department, it was noticed that there was a sale transaction of the immovable property for a consideration for an amount of Rs. 1,21,00,000 during the relevant assessment year 2015-2016.
Therefore, the petitioner in the case has been put to notice that it being the taxable income or not, and the reason was to be given along with supporting documents apart from submitting the calculation of capital gain arising out of the sale of the property.
The court observed that the notice dated 19.03.2022 have not been specifically served and the order having been passed on 04.04.2022.
The court while considering the facts and circumstances of the case observed and has noted that the petitioner-assessee has provided the sufficient material to show that apparently the notice and the subsequent order dated 04.04.2022 were served thereafter upon the petitioner.
Thus, an opportunity for filing the reply to show cause notice is required to be given, and accordingly, the subsequent orders dated 04.04.2022 are not liable to be sustained on this short ground since sufficient material by way of reports from the Post Office with regards to the dispatch of documents as such has also been placed on record.
Accordingly, the court allowed the plea with the cost for an amount of Rs. 10,000 to be paid to the petitioner assessee.
The counsel, Advocate Nikhil Goyal appeared for the Petitioner.
The counsel, Advocate Saurabh Kapoor represented the respondent.