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



IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Manmohan, Subramonium Prasad, JJ.
Interglobe Aviation Limited - Appellant
Versus
Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax - Respondent
W.P.(C) 6405 of 2022 & CM Appl. 19411 of 2022
Decided On : 28-04-2022




A time extension request must be honored to ensure fair administrative procedure under income tax regulations.

Headnote:(A) Income Tax Act, 1961 - Section 148 and Section 148A(b) - Challenging the notice issued under Section 148 - The petitioner received a notice under Section 148A(b), requested an extension to file a response, but the Revenue failed to consider it. The necessary procedure mandated for responding to notices was not followed, necessitating a remand for consideration of the objections. (Paras 1, 2, 6)

(B) Time Extension - The court clarified that since a request for fifteen days was made on 17th March, the response period should begin from that date rather than the initial notice date. (Para 6)

Facts of the case:
The writ petition challenges a notice under Section 148 for failure to acknowledge the petitioner's response submitted on 29th March, 2022, after a request for additional time was made.

Findings of Court:
The court set aside the impugned order and remanded it back for the Assessing Officer's consideration of the petitioner's objections within eight weeks.

Issues: Whether the notice under Section 148 was valid given the failure to consider the petitioner's prior response and the timeline requested for a response.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the time extension sought should be reasonably acknowledged, leading to the setting aside of the notice due to procedural oversight.

Result: Writ petition allowed in favor of the petitioner.

Table of Content
1. challenge against notice under income tax act (Para 1 , 2)
2. acceptance of notice by respondent (Para 4)
3. remand for consideration of petitioner's objections (Para 5 , 6)
4. disposal of writ petition with rights reserved (Para 7)

JUDGMENT

Manmohan, J. (Oral):

1. Present writ petition has been filed challenging the notice dated 30th March, 2022 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short `Act'). Petitioner also seeks a direction restraining the Respondent from proceeding with or giving effect to the impugned notice during the pendency of the present writ petition.

2. Learned counsel for the Petitioner states that the Petitioner received notice dated 11th March, 2022 under Section 148A(b) which directed the Petitioner to file its response by 17th March, 2022. He states that on 17th March, 2022, the Petitioner filed a plea seeking fifteen days additional time to submit its reply. He states that the petitioner proceeded to file its detailed response on 29th March, 2022. He contends that in the impugned order dated 30th March, 2022 the Revenue has failed to consider the reply dated 29th March, 2022 and erroneously noted that no reply had been filed by the Petitioner.

3. Issue notice.

4. Mr. Shailendra Singh, learned counsel accepts notice on behalf of the Respondent. He states that the Petitioner by way of its letter dated 17th March, 2022 had sought fifteen days time to respond from the date of the notice i.e. 11th March, 2022.

5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that the whole controversy revolves around the request for extension of time made by the Petitioner vide letter dated 17th March, 2022. The relevant portion of the said letter is reproduced hereinbelow:

    "... In this regard, it is humbly submitted that the Assessee requires additional time to respond to the attached notice. Hence, your goodself is requested to allow us 15 days time to respond.

(emphasis supplied)"

6. This Court is of the view that since the Petitioner had sought fifteen days additional time to respond, it would mean fifteen days from 17th March, 2022. Consequently, the impugned order dated 30th March, 2022 as well as consequential notice dated 30th March, 2022 issued under Section 148 of the Act are set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Assessing Officer to consider and decide the petitioner's objections dated 29th March, 2022 in accordance with law within eight weeks.

7. With the aforesaid the present writ petition and application stand disposed of. This Court clarifies that it has not commented on the merits of the controversy. The rights and contentions of all the parties are left open.

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