Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
MANMOHAN, SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD
Interglobe Aviation Limited – Appellant
Versus
Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax – Respondent
| 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 fi
A time extension request must be honored to ensure fair administrative procedure under income tax regulations.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the petitioner's request for extension of time and its impact on the impugned notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act,....
The Income Tax Officer failed to comply with mandatory response time requirements, violating the petitioner's right to due process under the Income Tax Act.
Petitioners are entitled to adequate time to respond to tax notices, and minimal delays in requests for adjournments, especially for residents abroad, should not result in dismissal of rights.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the right of the assessee to adequate time to respond to the Show Cause Notice and the exclusion of the period given to the assessee in computing t....
Statutory rights require a minimum seven-day response period under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, which was violated in this case.
Notice issued without granting statutory time to respond violated the principles of natural justice, rendering the order invalid.
The court affirmed that taxpayers are entitled to adequate time to respond to notices under the Income Tax Act, and failure to consider timely responses constitutes a violation of statutory duties.
Minimum time of seven days to be granted to the Assessee to file its reply to the show cause notice under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The court established that failing to consider a taxpayer's submission violates procedural fairness in tax assessments, necessitating the annulment of prior notices.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
