Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
MANMOHAN, DINESH KUMAR SHARMA
Lalit Kumar Poddar – Appellant
Versus
Income Tax Officer – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to order under income tax act (Para 1) |
| 2. failure to consider extension application and materials (Para 2 , 3) |
| 3. acceptance of notice and direction to consider (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 4. setting aside impugned order with directions (Para 7) |
| 5. court's non-interference with merits (Para 8) |
JUDGMENT
Manmohan, J. (Oral):
1. Present writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 25th March, 2022 passed by Respondent No.1 under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short `the Act') and the notice dated 26th March, 2022 issued by the Assessing Officer under Section 148 of the Act for the Assessment Year 2018-19.
2. Learned senior counsel for the Petitioner states that despite the Petitioner having moved an application for extension of time and the portal being kept open for the said purpose, the submission filed by the assessee within the extended time was not taken into account by the Respondents.
3. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner states that it is the mandate of statute under sub-clause (d) of Section 148A that the Assessing Officer shall decide, on the basis of material available on record including the reply of the assessee, as
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.
A time extension request must be honored to ensure fair administrative procedure under income tax regulations.
The court established that failing to consider a taxpayer's submission violates procedural fairness in tax assessments, necessitating the annulment of prior notices.
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 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.
Reassessing without a hearing contravenes natural justice principles; proceedings must ensure opportunities for taxpayer representation.
Section 148A advisedly uses the expression ‘enquiry’.
Section 148A(c) has been violated as it casts a duty on the Assessing Officer, by using the expression ‘shall’, to consider the reply of the Petitioner/assessee in response to notice under Section 14....
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....
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,....
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
