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) 5953

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Rajiv Shakdher, Girish Kathpalia, JJ.
Gyan Chand Gupta - Appellant
Versus
National Faceless Assessment Centre Delhi & Ors. - Respondents
W.P.(C) 12328 of 2023
Decided On : 19-09-2023

Advocates appeared:
Mr Nitin Gulati, Advocate, for the Petitioner.
Mr Prashant Meharchandani, Sr. Standing Counsel with Mr Akshat Singh and Ms Ritika Vohra, Standing Counsels, for the Respondent.

IMPORTANT POINT
The court emphasized that a writ action may not be a suitable remedy for matters involving contentious facts requiring thorough enquiry, and provided the petitioner with the option to file a statutory appeal with the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) within the next three weeks.

Headnote:

Assessment Order - Writ Petition - The court dismissed the writ petition challenging the assessment order for Assessment Year 2017-18, stating that the matter involves contentious facts requiring thorough enquiry and a writ action may not be a suitable remedy. The petitioner was given liberty to take recourse to an appropriate remedy as provided in law, with the option to file a statutory appeal with the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) within the next three weeks.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner sought to challenge the assessment order dated 28.05.2023, passed under section 147 r/w Section 144 and Section 144B of the Income Tax Act,1961. The petitioner alleged that the Assessing Officer did not take into account the responses filed by the petitioner/assessee.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the matter involves contentious facts requiring thorough enquiry, and therefore, a writ action may not be a suitable remedy. The writ petition was dismissed, with liberty given to the petitioner to take recourse to an appropriate remedy as provided in law.

Issues: Challenge to assessment order, Allegation of beneficiary of accommodation entries, Delay in approaching the court for assailing the assessment order

Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the matter involves contentious facts requiring thorough enquiry, and a writ action may not be a suitable remedy. The petitioner was given liberty to take recourse to an appropriate remedy as provided in law, with the option to file a statutory appeal with the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) within the next three weeks.

Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, with liberty given to the petitioner to take recourse to an appropriate remedy as provided in law, with the option to file a statutory appeal with the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) within the next three weeks.

JUDGMENT

[Physical Hearing/Hybrid Hearing (as per request)]

Rajiv Shakdher, J. (Oral)

CM APPL. 48538/2023

1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions.

W.P.(C) 12328/2023 and CM APPL. 48539/2023 [Application filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking interim relief]

2. This writ petition concerns Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18.

3. The petitioner seeks to challenge the assessment order dated 28.05.2023, passed under section 147 r/w Section 144 and Section 144B of the Income Tax Act,1961 [in short, "the Act"].

4. It is not in dispute that before passing the aforementioned assessment order, a show-cause notice (SCN), dated 28.05.2022, was issued to the petitioner under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short, "the Act"].

5. The record also shows that a SCN dated 15.05.2023 was also served on the petitioner/assessee.

6. Mr Nitin Gulati, who appears on behalf of the petitioner/assessee, points out that a reply dated 10.06.2022 was tendered vis-`-vis the first SCN dated 28.05.2022.

6.1. Likewise, we are told by Mr Gulati that replies were filed on 25.05.2023 and 26.05.2023 to the SCN dated 15.05.2023 albeit, after the date for filing the response provided in the said notice.

7. The record shows that, in the interregnum, the Assessing Officer (AO) had passed an order dated 29.07.2022 under Section 148A(d) of the Act.

8. In sum, the principles of natural justice appear to have been fulfilled at each stage and only thereafter, the impugned assessment order appears to have been passed.

9. The allegation against the petitioner, broadly, is that he is a beneficiary of accommodation entries which enabled him to register bogus long-term capital gain/loss.

10. Mr Gulati says that AO has not taken into account the responses filed by the petitioner/assessee.

11. Apart from anything else, we notice that the petitioner/assessee has taken his own sweet time in approaching the court for assailing the assessment order dated 28.05.2023.

12. In our view, the matter involves contentious facts which would require thorough enquiry, and therefore, a writ action may not be a suitable remedy.

13. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed, with liberty to the petitioner to take recourse to an appropriate remedy as provided in law.

13.1. In case the petitioner files a statutory appeal with the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) within the next three (3) weeks, the same will be dealt with on merits.

14. Pending application shall also stand closed.

15. Parties will act based on the digitally signed copies 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