SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Del) 5185

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Rajiv Shakdher, Girish Kathpalia, JJ.
Rajib Saha – Appellant
Versus
Income Tax Officer, Ward 10(1) & Anr. – Respondents
W.P.(C) 8109 of 2023
Decided On : 01-06-2023

Advocates appeared:
Mr Satyen Sethi, Advocate, for the Petitioner.
Mr Shlok Chandra, Senior Standing Counsel with Ms Priya Sarkar, Jr. Standing Counsel, for the Respondents.

The court emphasized the right to adjudication of the show-cause notice and provided a safeguard against adverse decisions under the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Headnote:

Income Tax Act - Recovery Notice - The court directed the concerned officer to adjudicate the show-cause notice and stated that if the decision is adverse, it shall not be given effect for a period of four weeks, allowing the petitioner to take recourse to an appropriate remedy.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner challenged a recovery notice issued under Section 179 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, seeking to recover outstanding demand against a company of which the petitioner is a director.

Finding of the Court:

The court directed the concerned officer to adjudicate the show-cause notice and stated that if the decision is adverse, it shall not be given effect for a period of four weeks, allowing the petitioner to take recourse to an appropriate remedy.

Issues: Challenge to recovery notice under the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Ratio Decidendi: The concerned officer must adjudicate the show-cause notice, and if the decision is adverse, it shall not be given effect for a period of four weeks, allowing the petitioner to take recourse to an appropriate remedy.

Final Decision: The writ petition is disposed of with the pending application closed.

JUDGMENT

Rajiv Shakdher, J. (Oral)

CM APPL. 31209/2023

1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions.

W.P.(C) 8109/2023 and CM APPL. 31208/2023[Application filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking interim relief]

2. Issue notice.

2.1. Mr Shlok Chandra, learned senior standing counsel, who appears on behalf of the respondents/revenue, accepts notice.

3. Given the directions that we propose to pass, Mr Chandra says, that he does not wish to file a counter-affidavit in the matter, and he will argue the matter based on the record presently available with the Court.

3.1. Therefore, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is taken up for hearing and final disposal, at this stage itself.

4. The petitioner, via this writ petition has assailed the notice dated 25.04.2023 issued under Section 179 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short, "Act"]. This notice seeks to recover the demand which is outstanding against a company going by the name Gisil Designs Pvt. Ltd. (GDPL) concerning Assessment Year (AY) 2008-09. It is not disputed, that the petitioner is one of the Directors of GDPL.

5. Mr Satyen Sethi, learned counsel, who appears on behalf of the petitioner, says that against the assessment order qua which recovery is sought to be made vis-a-vis the petitioner, an appeal has been lodged before the appellate authority as far back as in 2013, which has not been adjudicated up until now.

5.1. Furthermore, Mr Sethi informs us, that a response has been filed with respect to the aforementioned show-cause notice.

5.2. Mr Sethi, however, says that, inadvertently, the reply, which is dated 11.05.2023, has not been placed on record. We have, however, been shown a hard copy of the reply dated 11.05.2023.

6. Given this position, at this stage, we are not inclined to interdict the proceedings. The concerned officer is, however, directed to adjudicate the show-cause notice dated 25.04.2023. In case the decision rendered by the concerned officer is adverse to the interests of the petitioner, the same shall not be given effect to, for a period of four weeks from the date of the said order being served on the petitioner.

7. Needless to add, the petitioner will have liberty to take recourse to an appropriate remedy against such a decision. Before the AO proceeds further, he will accord personal hearing to the petitioner and/or his authorized representative. For this purpose, a notice shall be issued, indicating the date and time of hearing.

8. The writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

9. Consequently, pending application shall also stand closed.

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

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top