JAGRITI SHARMA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

[2025:RJ-JP:7144-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6079/2023 Jagriti Sharma, Through Her Authorized Representative Mrs.Megha Munshi, D/o Sh. Romesh Munshi, Aged 43 Years R/o 6210 Ground Floor, Dlf Phase 4, Gurugram, Haryana 122002 ----Petitioner Versus 1. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Jhunjhunu Having Its Address At Behind Collectorate, Mandawa Road, Jhunjhunu 333001 2. Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department, Having Its Office At Room No. 401, 2nd Floor, E-Ramp, Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium, Delhi-110003. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Siddharth Ranka with Mr.Rohan Chatter For Respondent(s) : Mr.Sandeep Pathak HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR Order 18/02/2025 1. This petition is filed seeking quashing of the proceedings initiated under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) for the Assessment Year 2018-2019 and consequential proceedings thereto. 2. The brief facts are that the petitioner is a non-resident Indian. On the basis of the information of a transaction entered by the petitioner with regard to immovable property, proceedings u/s 148 of the Act were initiated by issuance of show cause notice (for brevity, ’SCN’) dated 14.03.2022 u/s 148A(b) of the Act.

[2025:RJ-JP:7144-DB] (2 of 3) [CW-6079/2023] 3. The limited dispute in the present case is with regard to service of the SCN. 4. As per the department SCN was served through an E-mail address venturewood@yahoo.co.in and the case set up by the petitioner is that E-mail address is not of the petitioner. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents sought time to have instructions as to wherefrom the E-mail address venturewood@yahoo.co.in surfaced. Counsel produced the general information collected online by the department wherein this E-mail finds mention. However, there is nothing on record wherefrom this data was collected nor any document filed/filled by the petitioner has been produced wherein this E-mail address was mentioned. 6. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner on instructions fairly states that the matter be remitted back to decide afresh the objections to the notice issued under Section 148A(b) of the Act and the ground of limitation shall not be raised. 7. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the notice was sent on the e-mail address as depicted in the general information by the Department. 8. Inspite of granting opportunity to the department, no document has been produced to substantiate that service of the SCN was valid or that the petitioner had provided the e-mail address to the department. The order passed under Section 148A(b) is quashed. The matter is remitted back to the respondent No.1 to proceed in accordance with law in pursuance to the SCN. The petitioner, as stated above, shall not raise objection of limitation.

[2025:RJ-JP:7144-DB] (3 of 3) [CW-6079/2023] 9. In order to avoid further delay and complications, let the petitioner through his representative appear in the office of respondent No.1 on 18.03.2025 at 11:00 A.M. 10. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. (ASHUTOSH KUMAR),J (AVNEESH JHINGAN),J Monika/Tanisha/37 Whether Reportable: No