Dauphin Travel Marketing Private Limited v. Income Tax Officer, Ward 7(1), Delhi & Ors

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J. (ORAL): CM No.33517/2023

¶1Allowed, subject to just exceptions. W.P.(C) 8870/2023 & CM No.33516/2023 [Application filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking interim relief]

¶2At the outset, Mr Ved Jain, who appears on behalf of the petitioner, says that respondent nos.4 and 5 can be deleted from the array of parties.

2.1 It is ordered accordingly.

¶3To complete the record, Mr Jain will file an amended memo of parties within the next ten (10) days.

¶4Issue notice.

4.1 Mr Kunal Sharma, learned senior standing counsel, accepts notice on behalf of respondent nos.1 to 3, 6 & 7, i.e., the revenue.

¶5Given the directions that we propose to issue, Mr Sharma says that he does not wish to file a counter-affidavit and he will argue the matter based on the record presently available with the court. Therefore, with the consent of the learned counsels for the parties, the matter is taken up for hearing and final disposal at this stage itself.

¶6This writ petition concerns Assessment Year (AY) 2013-14.

¶7Inter alia, the petitioner seeks to challenge the assessment order dated

25.05.2023.

¶8Mr Jain says that challenge in the present petition is confined to the ground that there has been a breach of principles of natural justice, inasmuch as the notice dated 26.04.2023 issued under Section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short, "Act"] and the show-cause notice dated 12.05.2023 were not sent to the correct e-mail address of the petitioner.

¶9According to Mr Jain, the correct e-mail address of the petitioner, as registered with the respondents/revenue, is: dtm.psc@gmail.com.

¶10The record shows that the notice dated 26.04.2023 was sent to the following e-mail address: info@dtmindia.com.

10.1. Likewise, the show-cause notice dated 12.05.2023 proposing variation in income was also sent to the incorrect e-mail address, i.e., info@dtmindia.com. [See pages 209 and 215 of the case file].

¶11Besides the aforesaid, it is pointed out by Mr Jain that the petitioner

was granted time to file a response to the show-cause notice dated

12.05.2023, only up until 17.05.2023 (11:00 hours).

¶12It is Mr Jain's submission that the petitioner became aware of the aforementioned notices [i.e., notices issued under Section 142(1) of the Act and the show-cause notice], only when the information uploaded in the designated portal was ferreted on 25.05.2023, and, accordingly, a request was made for accommodation.

¶13As would be evident, this request was not considered, since the AO had proceeded to pass the assessment order dated 25.05.2023.

¶14In support of his plea that the Assessing Officer (AO) was required to grant a minimum of seven (7) days for responding to the show-cause notice, reliance is placed on the judgment rendered by this court in Indo Laminates Pvt. Ltd. vs. Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department & Ors.,

¶15At this stage, without getting bogged-down by the factual assertion made by the petitioner that the aforementioned notices were not directed to the correct e-mail address, we are inclined to set aside the assessment order on the ground that the show cause notice dated 12.05.2023 did not accord a minimum of seven (7) days to the petitioner to file a response.

15.1 It is ordered accordingly. The assessment order dated 25.05.2023 is set aside.

15.2 The petitioner is given leave to file response(s) to the notice dated

26.04.2023 issued under Section 142(1) of the Act and the show-cause notice dated 12.05.2023 within the next two (2) weeks.

15.3 To facilitate the filing of replies by the petitioner, the AO is directed to open the portal.

15.4 The AO will have liberty to pass a fresh assessment order, after taking into account the response(s), if any, that the petitioner may file, as indicated above, within the timeframe set forth hereinabove.

¶16The writ petition is disposed of, in the aforesaid terms.

¶17Consequently, the pending interlocutory application shall stand closed.

¶18Parties will act based on the digitally signed copy of the order.

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

GIRISH KATHPALIA, J

JULY 5, 2023

aj

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Decision delivered on: 05.07.2023 + W.P.(C) 8870/2023 & CM Nos.33516-17/2023 DAUPHIN TRAVEL MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED. Petitioner Through: Mr Ved Jain and Mr Nischay Kantoor, Advs. versus INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 7(1), DELHI & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr Kunal Sharma, Sr Standing Counsel with Ms Zehra Khan, Standing Counsel and Mr Shubhendu Bhattacharya, Adv. for R-1 to 3, 6 & 7/revenue. Mr Vikas Kumar Sharma and Mr Piyush Mishra, Advs. for R-5/UOI. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA [Physical Hearing/Hybrid Hearing (as per request)]