AO obliged to consider belated response filed on e-portal before passing final order

AO obliged to consider the response filed by assessee on e-filing portal though belatedly, before passing the final order – High Court

In a recent judgment, the Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta has held that once, assessee files response though belatedly, before passing the final order, the assessing officer is obliged and duty bound to consider the said response especially when the same was uploaded on the e-filing portal.

ABCAUS Case Law Citation:
ABCAUS 4052 (2024) (05) HC

In the instant case the Petitioner’s assessee filed a Writ Petition challenging order passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act).

The case of the petitioner’s was that in terms of the aforesaid notice under Section 148A(b), the petitioner was required to give its response by the specified date. However, since the petitioner was unable to respond within the due date, the petitioner had sought for an adjournment to a subsequent date. The petitioner, however, could not file its response within the adjourned date.

It was submitted that it was only two days after the adjourned date, the petitioner was finally able to file its response at e-filing portal of the income tax department. Such fact was corroborated from the e-proceedings response acknowledgement.

According to the petitioner the assessing officer by ignoring the said response and by treating, the petitioner had not filed any response to the notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act passed the order under Section 148A(d) of the Act on the 7^th day after the assessee had filed the response though belatedly.

The Revenue opposing the Petition contended that inasmuch as the petitioner had sought for extension of time to file his response to the notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act, the adjournment was allowed. Notwithstanding the aforesaid, the petitioner could not file its response within the extended time. The purported response filed by the petitioner subsequently was beyond the time specified. The assessing officer was not obliged to consider the said response and as such the order under Section 148A(d) was passed by treating, the petitioner had not filed any response to the notice under Section 148A(b) of the said Act.

The Hon’ble High Court opined that once, a response is filed by the petitioner though belatedly, before passing the final order, the assessing officer was obliged and duty bound to consider the said response especially when the same was uploaded on the portal.

The Hon’ble High Court further observed that if the extension was granted for the petitioner to file its response by the specified date, there was no reason for the AO to keep the “submit response tab” open on the portal for the petitioner to file its response after the extended date. Therefore, if the petitioner had been able to file its response and to get the same uploaded on the portal, the assessing officer ought to have considered the same.

The Hon’ble High Court further observed that the opinion find support by the judgements delivered by the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala and the other Bench of the Court.

In view of the above, the Hon’ble High Court set aside the order passed under Section 148A(d) of the Act as not sustainable. As a sequel thereto, the notice under Section 148 of the said Act was also set aside.

The Hon’ble High Court directed assessing officer to provide an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner by making available a video conferencing link within a one week and to conclude the proceedings under Section 148 of the said Act by considering the response to be given by the petitioner and pass the order accordingly.

Download Full Judgment Click Here >>

• AO took a reasonable stand that 25 kg written in WhatsApp chat was 25 lakh – ITAT
• Shareholders can’t be taxed for income from properties owned by the company – HC
• Jurisdictional error in reassessment approval can’t be shielded by the law of limitation
• ITAT ought to remanded whole matter of bogus purchases instead of profit determination
• Where proceedings u/s 153C barred by limitation, AO can’t invoke section 148 & 148A