Reassessment Quashed Due to Section 148 Notice Sent to Incorrect Email ID
In the case of Nitin Jain vs ACIT, the appellant challenged the reassessment proceedings initiated for the Assessment Year 2014-15. The primary ground of appeal was the non-service of the Section 148 notice, which was mistakenly sent to an incorrect email ID (ashwani@abia.in) instead of the correct one (accounts@JNitin.com). The appellant argued that the absence of valid notice rendered the reassessment proceedings invalid and void-ab-initio.
The appellant further argued that the reassessment was initiated beyond the limitation period of four years, despite the absence of any established failure on his part to disclose material facts fully and truly. Since the original assessment was completed under Section 143(3), reopening it without fulfilling these conditions was unlawful. Additionally, the appellant pointed out that reassessment proceedings were started while rectification proceedings under Section 154 were still pending.
The appellant also contested the addition of ₹ 43,39,290 made to his income. This amount comprised ₹17,83,142 due to TDS on the service tax component ₹28,258 due to TDS on previous year’s income and ₹25,27,890 related to customer advances recognized in subsequent years. The appellant contended that these discrepancies were due to timing differences and required limited verification by the AO.
The Tribunal found merit in the appellant’s claim regarding the non-service of notice under Section 148. It relied on the Delhi High Court ruling in Suman Jeet Agarwal and the Supreme Court’s judgment in Ashish Agarwal, which confirmed that incorrectly served notices must be treated as non-issued. Since the notice was served on an unrelated email ID and first accessed only on 24.12.2021, the Tribunal ruled the reassessment proceedings invalid.
Based on these findings, the Tribunal quashed the reassessment proceedings, declaring them non-existent and void. Since the reassessment order itself was deemed invalid, the Tribunal found no need to examine the remaining legal issues or the merits of the additions. The appeal was accordingly allowed in favor of the appellant.
The Copy Of the order is as under:
