Allowed¶26

Jagriti Sharma v. Income Tax Officer

Rajasthan HC18 Feb 2025CW/6079/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: service of notice; show cause notice; SCN; Section 148 Income Tax Act 1961; Section 148A(b); e-mail service; [email protected]; invalid service; quashing of order u/s 148A(b); remand to Assessing Officer; limitation objection waived; non-resident Indian; immovable property transaction; Assessment Year 2018-2019; Income Tax Officer Ward 1 Jhunjhunu; Rajasthan HC Jaipur DB; D.B. Civil Writ Petition 6079/2023; decided 18/02/2025; not reportable.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed. Order under Section 148A(b) quashed; matter remitted to respondent No.1 to proceed afresh in accordance with law in pursuance to the SCN; petitioner not to raise objection of limitation; petitioner directed to appear through her representative in the office of respondent No.1 on 18.03.2025 at 11:00 A.M. ¶26

Jagriti Sharma Vs Income Tax Officer — Income Tax | Rajasthan HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶26

Issue for consideration

Whether the show cause notice dated 14.03.2022 issued under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was validly served on the petitioner through the e-mail address [email protected].

¶19

Court's answer

Despite opportunity, no document was produced to substantiate that service of the SCN was valid or that the petitioner had provided the disputed e-mail address to the department.

¶21

Ratio / Principle

On failure of the department to establish valid service, the order passed under Section 148A(b) is quashed and the matter is remitted back to respondent No.1 to proceed in accordance with law in pursuance to the SCN.

¶21

Key takeaways

The petitioner, having sought remittance of the matter for fresh decision on the objections, shall not raise the objection of limitation.ratio¶21

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Rajasthan High Court (Jaipur, Division Bench) allowed a writ petition challenging proceedings under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for Assessment Year 2018-2019 initiated on information regarding a transaction in immovable property by the petitioner, a non-resident Indian. The sole dispute was the validity of service of the show cause notice dated 14.03.2022 issued under Section 148A(b), which the Department claimed to have served by e-mail at [email protected], an address the petitioner denied as hers. Despite opportunity, the Department produced nothing to show where the e-mail address was sourced from or any document of the petitioner containing it. Holding that valid service stood unsubstantiated, the Court quashed the order under Section 148A(b), remitted the matter to respondent No.1 (ITO, Ward 1, Jhunjhunu) to proceed afresh in accordance with law pursuant to the SCN, recorded the petitioner's undertaking not to press limitation, and directed her representative to appear before respondent No.1 on 18.03.2025 at 11:00 A.M.

¶1

[2025:RJ-JP:7144-DB]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6079/2023

¶4

Jagriti Sharma, Through Her Authorized Representative Mrs.Megha Munshi, D/o Sh. Romesh Munshi, Aged 43 Years R/o 6210 Ground Floor, Dlf Phase 4, Gurugram, Haryana 122002

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Jhunjhunu Having Its Address At Behind Collectorate, Mandawa Road, Jhunjhunu 333001

¶8

Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department, Having Its Office At Room No. 401, 2^nd Floor, E-Ramp, Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium, Delhi-110003.

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Siddharth Ranka with Mr.Rohan Chatter For Respondent(s) : Mr.Sandeep Pathak

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR

¶12

Order

¶13

18/02/2025

¶14

This petition is filed seeking quashing of the proceedings initiated under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) for the Assessment Year 2018-2019 and consequential proceedings thereto.

¶15

The brief facts are that the petitioner is a non-resident Indian. On the basis of the information of a transaction entered by the petitioner with regard to immovable property, proceedings u/s 148 of the Act were initiated by issuance of show cause notice (for brevity, ’SCN’) dated 14.03.2022 u/s 148A(b) of the Act.

[2025:RJ-JP:7144-DB]

[CW-6079/2023]

(2 of 3)

The limited dispute in the present case is with regard to service of the SCN.

¶20

As per the department SCN was served through an E-mail address [email protected] and the case set up by the petitioner is that E-mail address is not of the petitioner. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents sought time to have instructions as to wherefrom the E-mail address [email protected] surfaced. Counsel produced the general information collected online by the department wherein this E-mail finds mention. However, there is nothing on record wherefrom this data was collected nor any document filed/filled by the petitioner has been produced wherein this E-mail address was mentioned.

¶21

At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner on instructions fairly states that the matter be remitted back to decide afresh the objections to the notice issued under Section 148A(b) of the Act and the ground of limitation shall not be raised. 7. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the notice was sent on the e-mail address as depicted in the general information by the Department. 8. Inspite of granting opportunity to the department, no document has been produced to substantiate that service of the SCN was valid or that the petitioner had provided the e-mail address to the department. The order passed under Section 148A(b) is quashed. The matter is remitted back to the respondent No.1 to proceed in accordance with law in pursuance to the SCN. The petitioner, as stated above, shall not raise objection of limitation.

[2025:RJ-JP:7144-DB]

[CW-6079/2023]

(3 of 3)

In order to avoid further delay and complications, let the petitioner through his representative appear in the office of respondent No.1 on 18.03.2025 at 11:00 A.M.

¶26

The writ petition is accordingly allowed.

(ASHUTOSH KUMAR),J

(AVNEESH JHINGAN),J

Monika/Tanisha/37

Whether Reportable: No

Jagriti Sharma v. Income Tax Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jagriti Sharma v. Income Tax Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Shri Rajendra Agrawal

Principal Commissioner of Income TAX-1, Vs Shri Mukesh Jain

Principal Commissioner of Income TAX-1 Vs Poonia Wines(Rewari)

Ramesh Chand Maheshwari S/O Shri Laxmi Narain Maheshwari Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

Shree Nath Agencies Vs Appellate Authority-I, Rajasthan Goods and Service Tax Department

Kogta Financial (India) Limited Vs State of Rajasthan