Assessment order quashed as despite updating e-mail ID on Portal notices sent to old email id

Assessment order u/s 148 quashed as the petitioner had updated his e-mail ID in the IT Portal and the notices were sent to old email id.

In a recent judgment, High Court quashed ex parte assessment order u/s 148 as the petitioner had updated his e-mail ID in his profile at the IT Portal with a legitimate expectation that all communications will be sent to its updated e-mail address which were sent to his old email id making absence of service of notices invalidating the assessment proceedings and ex parte orders.

ABCAUS Case Law Citation:
5041 (2026) (02) abcaus.in HC

In the instant case, the Petitioner/assessee had challenged reassessment proceedings initiated by the Income Tax Department  in pursuance of purported notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) in view of the fact that none of purported notice issued under Section 148 as well as Notices issued under Section 142(1) of the Act, were served upon the Petitioner in order to comply the same.

After lapse of more than six years from filing of return of income for relevant Assessment Year, the petitioner was served with a Notice issued by the NFAC through speed post.

In the notice, the petitioner was intimated that NFAC had not received any response from the petitioner for the relevant assessment year in respect of certain notices sent to it. It was also mentioned in the said Notice that copies of such notices were attached, but no such attachment was found by the petitioner. However, a Notice issued under Section 142(1) of the Act was attached along with ANNEXURE.

The case of the Petitioner was that long before, he had updated its email id in his profile at Income Tax Portal and the petitioner had been making all the correspondences with the Department on its updated e-mail ID and the Respondent Department had also used the said e-mail ID of the petitioner for sending all the information.

According to the petitioner, none of the notices had been served upon the petitioner by the Respondent Department on the aforesaid email ID nor the same was sent through the speed post and the entire proceedings initiated by the Respondent Department was in pursuant to the purported notice issued under Section 148 of the Act including the reassessment proceedings under Section 147 of the Act against the petitioner for the relevant assessment year were null and void ab initio.

It was submitted that it was only through Notice sent through speed post, the petitioner for the first time came to know about the issuance of Notices under Section 148 of the Act as well as under Section 142(1) of the Act and immediately thereafter, approached the Court by filing the writ petitions. 

The Hon’ble High Court opined that the assessment orders impugned and the belated Demand and Penalty Notices were vitiated due to procedural lapses and non-compliance with statutory provisions. The statutory notice under Section 142 of the Act was not served upon the petitioner at its registered e-mail address as mandated under Section 282 of the Act. Instead, this was sent on an e-mail address that was no longer operative, thereby violating the principles of natural justice.

The Hon’ble High Court observed that the petitioner had a legitimate expectation arising out of consistent past practice that all communications will be sent to its registered e-mail address after the same had been successfully updated in e-filing portal. The failure to adhere to this established protocol and absence of proper service of notices invalidated the subsequent assessment proceedings and ex parte orders passed by the Department.

The Hon’ble High Court also opined that it is imperative for the Assessing Officer to have checked if any change in address before initiating a proceeding and that a valid service of notice under Section 148, given the fact that the valid service of notice under Section 148 is a condition precedent, lest it would be a jurisdictional error.

The Hon’ble High Court further observed that petitioner had been issued impugned notices after a lapse of more than six years and the petitioner could not be expected to keep the e-Portal of the Department open all the time so as to have acknowledge of what the Department is supposed to be doing with regard to the submissions of forms, etc.

Accordingly, the Hon’ble High Court quashed the purported notices issued under Section 148 of the Act including reassessment proceedings under Section 147 of the Act as also under Section 142(1) of the Act against the petitioner-assessee, as well as the  ex parte assessment orders passed under Section 147 read with Section 144 read with Section 144B of the Act and ex parte Penalty Orders under Sections 271(1)(c) of the Act.

The matter was remitted to the concerned Assessing Officer for considering the matter afresh after providing due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner-assessee.

Download Full Judgment Click Here >>

• Compensation to borrower upheld as bank did not verify construction progress before loan disbursals to builder
• No timeline mentioned in PMLA to forward arrest order & material in possession to Adjudicating Authority
• Release of seized assets if mandatory on completion of 120 days? Question referred to Larger Bench
• EPFO Extends date of filing of new ECR for the wage month September to 31/10/2026
• Earlier acceptance is relevant evidence in evaluating subsequent allegation of fictitious investment