Assessee being a non-tax payer, cannot be expected to view the Portal after a lapse of 8 eight years – High Court
In a recent judgment, the Hon’ble Madras High Court has quashed reassessment order observing that a non-tax payer cannot be expected to view the Income Tax Portal after a lapse of 8 eight years.
ABCAUS Case Law Citation:
4465 (2025) (03) abcaus.in HC
In the instant case, a Writ Petition was filed by the Petitioner/assessee with prayer to quash the order under Section 147 of the Act and to direct the Assessing Officer (AO) to complete the fresh assessment after providing reasonable/sufficient opportunity of hearing.
It was submitted that petitioner had no source of income other than salary earned from and the tax payable by her for each assessment year was deducted at source by the respective employer and after such deduction, no further income tax was payable by her, therefore, there was no necessity for the petitioner to pay to file return of income, hence, the petitioner was not aware as to when the notice u/s 148 of the Act regarding re-assessment proceedings was caused by the respondent Income Tax Department, however, the Department, without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, passed the impugned order, which was in violation of principles of natural justice.
The Department submitted that before passing the impugned orders, all the notices/communications were served/issued to the petitioner via. Online Portal, E-mail and RPAD, however, insofar as notices sent via. Email were concerned, the same bounced back and the notice sent through Notice sent through Registered Post with Acknowledge Due (RPAD) returned with an endorsement, ‘No such Addressee’, and therefore, it was not open to the petitioner to contend that no intimation was given before passing the impugned order, when the petitioner, having failed to utilize the same, cannot come out with a false plea and seek refuge under the pretext that the petitioner is not aware of such assessment proceedings.
In reply, the Petitioner submitted that she was not residing in India, but residing at U.S.A., therefore, there was no possibility for the petitioner to receive the notice that is alleged to have been sent to the petitioner via. RPAD.
The Hon’ble High Court observed that notices had been issued to the petitioner through all modes of service, viz., Online Portal, E-mail and RPAD. Insofar as notice sent through online portal is concerned, since the petitioner was not a regular income tax payer, she cannot be expected to view the Portal then and there. So far as the notice sent via. E-mail was concerned, since the same was stated to have bounced back, the same could not be known to the petitioner. Finally, the notice that was sent through RPAD was concerned, the same was returned with an endorsement, ”No such Addressee, as the petitioner was no longer resident of India, there was no possibility for her to respond to such notice.
The Hon’ble High Court opined that in above scenario, it was sheer clear that the petitioner was totally unaware of the proceedings being initiated by the respondent-Income Tax Department. The petitioner, being a non-tax payer, cannot be expected to view the Portal after a lapse of 8 eight years. Thus, the ignorance pleaded by the petitioner appears to be genuine.
The Hon’ble High Court set aside the impugned orders with direction to Petitioner to file a reply and AO to affording opportunity of personal hearing before passing the order.
Download Full Judgment Click Here >>
- UCO Bank Concurrent Auditor Online Empanelment for FY 2025-26
- Section 87A rebate available for short-term capital gains – ITAT
- Homebuyer entitled to possession if their name included in list of financial creditors
- GSTN Advisory to file pending returns before expiry of three years on 01.10.2025
- Insurance premium paid for partner of the firm held as allowable expenditure
