Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Manmohan, Dinesh Kumar Sharma, JJ.
Lalit Kumar Poddar - Appellant
Versus
Income Tax Officer - Respondent
W.P.(C) 7142 of 2022 & CM Appl. 21900 of 2022
Decided On : 09-05-2022
Important Points
Subject
Tax Law - Income Tax
Headnote
(B) Statutory Duty - The necessity for the Assessing Officer to decide based on all available material including the assessee's reply is mandatory, failure to do so leads to an unjustified issuance of notice. (Paras 3, 7)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged an order and notice issued by the Income Tax Officer concerning the assessment for the year 2018-19, claiming that their timely submissions were ignored.
Findings of Court:
The court set aside the impugned order and directed the Assessing Officer to issue a new, reasoned order considering the petitioner's representation.
Issues: Whether the Assessing Officer's issuance of notice and order was valid given the purported failure to consider the petitioner’s submission?
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the failure of the Assessing Officer to consider the submission amounted to a breach of the procedural requirements outlined in the statute, necessitating the setting aside of the order and notice.
Result: Writ petition allowed, and the Assessing Officer directed to pass a fresh order.
| 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 to whether or not it is a fit case to issue a notice under Section 148 of the Act, by passing an order, with the prior approval of Pr. CIT. She points out that in the present case, Respondent No.1 has not considered the reply/representation made by the assessee and had proceeded with a pre-determined mind.
4. Issue notice.
5. Mr. Ajit Sharma, learned counsel accepts notice on behalf of the respondents.
6. He states that the petitioner has not placed on record either the Show Cause Notice or the correspondence exchanged with the Department. He, however, states that respondents have no objection if the Assessing Officer is directed to consider the reply/representation of the petitioner a copy of which has been placed at page 64 of the paper book.
7. Consequently, the impugned order dated 25th March, 2022 as well as the notice dated 26th March, 2022 are set aside and the Assessing Officer is directed to pass a fresh reasoned order in accordance with law within six weeks, after considering the reply/representation dated 26th March, 2022 placed at pages 64 and 65 of the paper book along with annexure enclosed therewith. With the aforesaid direction, the present writ petition and application stand disposed of.
8. 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.
