Case Number: ITA 445/DEL/2019
Appellant: Sanjeev Kumar Khatri, New Delhi
Respondent: ITO, Ward-II(3), Faridabad
Assessment Year: 2008-09
Case Filed On: 2019-01-22
Order Type: Final Tribunal Order
Date of Order: 2022-06-30
Pronounced On: 2022-06-30
The case of Sanjeev Kumar Khatri vs ITO, Ward-II(3), Faridabad revolves around the validity of reassessment proceedings initiated by the Income Tax Department. The core issue is the correctness of the address on the notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The appellant, Sanjeev Kumar Khatri, argued that the notices were sent to an incorrect address, which led to his non-participation in the assessment proceedings.
The appellant, Sanjeev Kumar Khatri, filed his return of income for the assessment year 2008-09 with an address in Tuglakabad, Delhi. However, the notices under Section 148 were issued to an address in Faridabad, which did not belong to him. This discrepancy led to the appellant not receiving the notices and consequently not participating in the assessment proceedings.
The appellant argued that the reassessment proceedings were invalid as the notices under Section 148 were issued to an incorrect address. The appellant’s representative highlighted that the latest return filed on 30.12.2013 had the correct address in Tuglakabad, Delhi, and the PAN database also reflected the same address. Therefore, the notices issued to the Faridabad address were invalid, and the resulting assessments should be annulled.
The respondent, represented by the CIT-DR, argued against the admission of the additional grounds brought up by the appellant. They contended that the address discrepancy required factual investigation, which was not purely a legal issue. They maintained that the Assessing Officer issued the notices based on the address available in the bank statements, which led to the reassessment proceedings.
The ITAT considered the submissions of both parties and noted the following:
The Tribunal acknowledged that the assessments were completed under Section 144 of the Act due to non-cooperation from the appellant. However, in the interest of natural justice, the ITAT decided to set aside the assessment orders and remand the cases back to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to provide the appellant with a reasonable opportunity of being heard and to consider all evidences submitted by the appellant.
The ITAT set aside the assessment orders for the assessment years 2007-08 and 2008-09, and the penalty order for the assessment year 2008-09. The cases were remanded back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration, with instructions to address the issues raised by the appellant regarding the incorrect address on the notices under Section 148.
This decision highlights the importance of ensuring that notices issued by the Income Tax Department are sent to the correct address of the taxpayer. It reinforces the principle that procedural lapses, such as sending notices to an incorrect address, can invalidate reassessment proceedings. The ruling also underscores the necessity for taxpayers to keep their address updated with the tax authorities to avoid such disputes.
The ITAT’s decision in the case of Sanjeev Kumar Khatri vs ITO, Ward-II(3), Faridabad, underscores the significance of proper communication in tax proceedings. It emphasizes the need for tax authorities to meticulously follow procedural requirements and for taxpayers to ensure their information is up to date with the authorities. This case serves as a reminder of the fundamental principles of natural justice and fair play in tax administration.
Sanjeev Kumar Khatri vs ITO, Ward-II(3), Faridabad: Notice Address Dispute – ITA 445/DEL/2019
Manage the increasing number of hearings effortlessly by leveraging the legal AI revolution We are India's Leading revolutionary AI-powered legal platform where you can get enough insights into top cases and judgements.
Research Platform