The Tax PublishersW.P. No. 2354 of 2020 & WMP Nos. 5326 & 2745 of 2020
2020 TaxPub(DT) 3138 (Mad-HC)

CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950

Article226

Where petitioner had to file a return of income in response to a notice under section 148 or to state that the return filed earlier should be taken to have been filed in compliance to the notice and Court was not expected to resolve factual issues and errors arising out of multiplicity of PANs, since petitioner expresses apprehension that on account of technical glitches, he would be unable to file the appeal, therefore, petitioner was permitted to file an appeal manually.

Writ - Reopening of assessment under section 147 - Petitioner had not filed a return of income in pursuance to notice under section 148 -

Notice under section 148 was issued to petitioner, quoted a non-existing PAN. Thus, according to him, the very basis of proceedings for re-assessment stand vitiated. Addition pertained to alleged interest earned on bank deposits. Petitioner questioned the existence of the very bank accounts and consequently the interest said to arise therefrom. He pointed out that multiple plea were made before Officer for a statement of tax deduction to substantiate the allegation of earning of interest, and such details/statement was never supplied by Officer Held: It was incumbent upon petitioner to file a return of income in response to a notice under section 148 or to state that return filed earlier should be taken to have been filed in compliance to the notice. Also not inclined to accept the explanation offered now in this regard, to the effect that the mismatch in PAN would have stood in the way of the return being accepted online, as it did not figure either in the correspondence inter se petitioner and Department and was made only orally. This Court was not expected to resolve factual issues and errors arising out of multiplicity of PANs, particularly when petitioner had admittedly applied for and obtained separate PAN numbers voluntarily. Since petitioner expresses apprehension that on account of technical glitches, he would be unable to file the appeal, petitioner was permitted to file an appeal manually.

Followed:GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. v. ITO & Ors. (2003) 259 ITR 19 (SC) : 2003 TaxPub(DT) 0734 (SC)

REFERRED :

FAVOUR : Directions issued

A.Y. : 2012-13



IN THE MADRAS HIGH COURT

SUBSCRIBE TaxPublishers.inSUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT

TaxPublishers.in

'Kedarnath', 7, Avadh Vihar, Near Nirali Dhani,

Chopasni Road

Jodhpur - 342 008 (Rajasthan) INDIA

Phones : 9785602619 (11 am - 5 pm)

E-Mail : mail@taxpublishers.in / mail.taxpublishers@gmail.com