Valmiki Sa Menezes JUDGMENT
Valmiki Sa Menezes, J.
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith by consent of the learned counsel for the parties.
2. This Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeks from this Court, a Writ of Certiorari to quash and set aside the impugned notice under clause (b) of section 148A dated 21.03.2022, order under clause (d) of section 148A dated 02.04.2022 and notice u/s. 148 dated 02.04.2022 passed by the respondents under the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). The case pertains to the financial year 2014-15 relevant to the assessment year 2015-16.
3. It is the petitioner's contention that he is a non-resident Indian, residing in Dubai, UAE and since his total income for the relevant financial year was below the maximum amount chargeable to tax, he was not required to file his return of income for the relevant assessment year 2015-16. It was further his case that he received a notice dated 21.03.2022 under clause (b) of section 148A of the Act from Respondent No. 1 stating that he had information that the income chargeable to tax for the relevant assessment year had escaped assessment, within the meaning of section 147 of the Act and called upon the petitioner to show-cause why a notice u/s. 148 of the Act should not be issued. Details of the information received was enclosed as Annexure 'A' to the said notice.
4. The petitioner filed his response to the said notice electronically on 28.03.2022, pursuant to which, Respondent No. 1 addressed an order under clause (d) of section 148A of the Act on 02.04.2022. It is the petitioner's case that this order was never received by him through e-mail; however, he has subsequently received a copy of this order on 16.04.2022 by speed post.
5. The petitioner further contends that Respondent No. 1 issued notice u/s. 148 of the Act dated 02.04.2022 stating that he had information suggesting that income chargeable to tax for the assessment year 2015-16 had escaped assessment within the meaning of section 147 of the Act and directed the petitioner to furnish return of income within 30 days from the service of the notice. It is the petitioner's categorical case that this notice was never received by the petitioner by e-mail. It is his further categorical averment in the petition that this notice u/s. 148 has not been signed by Respondent No. 1. It is further averred that this unsigned notice alongwith the copy of order under clause (d) of section 148A of the Act was received by him by speed post on 16.04.2022.
6. Based upon these facts, it is the petitioner's contention that since the notice dated 02.04.2022 issued u/s. 148 of the Act was unsigned and never sent to the petitioner, the same is invalid, bad-in-law and deserves to be quashed and set aside; that since the purported unsigned notice issued u/s.