Mrs. Divya J Narang V. Assessing Officer Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 1(1) and TPS Income Tax Office, Mysuru and Additional Commissioner of Income Tax Range-1 Income Tax Office Mysuru and Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Karnataka and Goa Jurisdiction and Union of India under Ministry of Finance

WP/13014/2022

AI Insights

The case involves Mrs. Divya J Narang, the widow of Late Jawahar G Narang, who filed a writ petition against the Income Tax Department officials for not being served a show cause notice physically, which led to an order and subsequent notice under the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner contended that the notices were sent via email, which she could not access due to her lack of computer literacy, resulting in her inability to respond and thus, unjustly facing consequences. The respondents argued that the email notice was sufficient and the petitioner was obligated to respond. The court found that the petitioner had not been properly heard and granted her an opportunity to respond to the show cause notice.

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 689889 (HC-KARNATAKA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 14-07-2022
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: K V ARAVIND
• Assessee Lawyers: ABDULLA KHAN
• Keywords: E-mail Notification; Income Tax; Non compliance; Opportunity to Reply; Show cause notice
• Section: 148; 148A

Judgement Text

" - 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF JULY 2022 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN WRIT PETITION No.13014 OF 2022 (T-IT) BETWEEN: MRS. DIVYA J NARANG W/O LATE JAWAHAR G NARANG AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS R/AT NO.805, 8TH FLOOR BRIGADE HORIZON BANNUR MAIN ROAD ITTIGEGUD, MYSURU-570 010 … PETITIONER (BY SRI.ABDULLA MANNAN KHAN, ADV.) AND: 1 . ASSESSING OFFICER ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 1(1) AND TPS INCOME TAX OFFICE, MYSURU-570 010 2 . ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RANGE-1 INCOME TAX OFFICE MYSURU-570 010 3 . PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KARNATAKA AND GOA JURISDICTION, C R BUILDING NO.1, QUEENS ROAD BENGALURU-560 001 - 2 - 4 . UNION OF INDIA UNDER MINISTRY OF FINANCE NEW DELHI-110 001 REP. BY ITS SECRETARY ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K. V. ARAVIND, ADV. FOR R1 TO R3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE NO.ITBA/AST/F/148A(SCN)/2021-22/1041426700(1) DATED 24.03.2022 ISSUED BY R1 IS HEREBY PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-A ETC. THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: O R D E R On the ground that the assessee, who is the husband of the petitioner herein has not filed returns of income for the assessment year 2015-2016, proceedings have been initiated. As the husband of the petitioner had expired on 22.07.2021, necessary notices were issued to the petitioner herein, who is his wife. However, it is contended by the petitioner that the said notices have not been served on her physically. It is contended that the notices were sent on e- mail and the petitioner being not computer literate was not in a position to open the same and see it and she did not realize about the mails at all. Consequently, she was not in - 3 - a position to reply to the Show Cause Notice issued under clause (b) of Section 148A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and consequently, the impugned order under clause (d) of Section 148A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 has been passed and notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 has been issued. Aggrieved by the same, the instant writ petition is filed. 2. It is contended by the petitioner that being illiterate in handling computers, she was not in a position to open e-mail and access the notice and it has resulted in injustice to her and if given an opportunity, she would justify the same before the authorities. 3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that notice is issued by way of e-mail and it is obligatory on the part of the petitioner to submit her reply and it is contended that not having done so, she has to suffer the consequences and prays for dismissal of the writ petition. However, he is not able to dispute the fact that e- mail sent by the Department could have gone into spam - 4 - and the petitioner might not have been able to access the same. 4. Admittedly, petitioner has not been heard. It is contended that she could not access the notice sent by the authorities. Learned counsel for the respondent is not in a position to dispute the said fact. 5. Under the peculiar facts and circumstances, without making it a precedent, interest of justice would be served if petitioner would be given an opportunity to reply to the show cause notice issued by the respondents. 6. Hence, the following:- ORDER (i) The impugned order under clause (d) of Section 148A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 05.04.2022 bearing DIN & Notice No.ITBA/AST/F/148A/2022- 23/1042506398(1) vide Annexure – C to the writ petition is hereby set aside. - 5 - (ii) Consequently, the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 05.04.2022 bearing DIN & Notice No.ITBA/AST/S/148_1/2022- 23/1042506823(1) vide Annexure – B to the writ petition is set aside. (iii) Petitioner is granted 15 days time from today to file necessary reply to the notice issued under clause (b) of Section 148A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 24.03.2022 bearing DIN No.ITBA/AST/F/148A(SCN)/2021- 22/1041426700(1) vide Annexure – A to the writ petition. (iv) The authorities shall consider reply of the petitioner in accordance with law and pass an appropriate orders thereafter. (v) Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- JUDGE MH/- "