Nagendra Singh V. National Faceless Assessment Centre Delhi

WTAX/831/2021

AI Insights

The case involves a challenge by the petitioner, Nagendra Singh, against an assessment order dated 29.08.2021 for the assessment year 2017-18, issued by the National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi. The petitioner contended that the order was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice as he did not receive any notice at his registered email address. The respondent argued that the petitioner had an alternative remedy through the appeals process. The court examined the communication records and found that the petitioner had indeed received notices at the email address disclosed in his tax return, and had responded to one such notice. Consequently, the court dismissed the writ petition, allowing the petitioner to file an appeal within two weeks without raising objections to the limitation period due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 806103 (HC-DELHI)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 04-10-2021
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: GAURAV MAHAJAN
• Assessee Lawyers: ASHISH BANSAL; SHALINI GOEL
• Keywords: Alternate remedy; Assessment Order; Email notice; Natural Justice; Violation of Principles
• Section: 144(b)

Judgement Text

"Court No. - 3 Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 831 of 2021 Petitioner :- Nagendra Singh Respondent :- National Faceless Assessment Centre Delhi Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashish Bansal,Shalini Goel Counsel for Respondent :- Gaurav Mahajan Hon'ble Naheed Ara Moonis,J. Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J. Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for and is permitted to correct the prayer clause in the memo of writ petition. Heard Shri Ashish Bansal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Krishna Agarwal, learned counsel for the Revenue. Challenge has been raised to the assessment order dated 29.08.2021 (Annexure no. 1 to the writ petition) for the A.Y. 2017-18. At the outset, an objection has been raised by the learned counsel for the Revenue that against the impugned order, the petitioner has an equally efficacious alternative remedy. Meeting that objection, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said order has been passed in violation of principles of natural justice, inasmuch as, no notice had been served on the petitioner at the registered e-mail i.d. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, undoubtedly, while filing its return for the A.Y. 2017-18, the petitioner had disclosed the e-mail address as \"[e-mail]\". The fact that in the subsequent return, the petitioner had given a different e-mail address, may not lead the unexceptional conclusion that no notice could have been served upon the petitioner at the e-mail address disclosed in the return filed by him. In this regard, the provision of Section 144(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 provides for various alternative e-mail addresses. Since the statute contemplates any one of the alternate e-mail address to be valid for the purposes of service of the notice and in the present case, the notices were issued to the petitioner at the address disclosed by him in his return for the A.Y. in question, and he had responded to one such notice dated 24.01.2021 and submitted his reply on merits without intimating to the assessing authority and without further requesting the assessing authority to send other and further notices at any other e-mail address, it is difficult to reach a conclusion that the impugned order has been passed, in complete violation of principles of natural justice. As to the absence of \"real time alert\", through the SMS, we feel that the said issue is factual, which may properly be gone in appeal proceedings. Since we are not convinced that in the facts of the present case, the petitioner was completely at loss of notice of the proceedings against him, we are not inclined to lift the bar of alternate remedy. In such facts and law, the petitioner has an equally efficacious remedy of appeal against the impugned order. The writ petition is dismissed, leaving it open to the petitioner to file an appeal within a period of two weeks' from today along with a copy of this order. That appeal may be heard and decided on its own merits without raising any objection as to the limitation. This relaxation has been made in view of the present circumstances prevailing from the spread of the pandemic COVID-19. Order Date :- 4.10.2021 Saurabh "