Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Manmohan, Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, JJ.
Shubham Thakral - Appellant
Versus
Income Tax Officer - Respondent
W.P.(C) 9293 of 2022
Decided On : 03-06-2022
Important Points
Subject
Tax Law - Income Tax
Headnote
Facts of the case:
The writ petition was filed challenging a notice issued under Section 148A(b) with inadequate time to respond, as the Petitioner was given only three days as opposed to the mandated seven days. The Respondent did not object to remanding the matter back for a fresh decision.
Findings of Court:
The court set aside the impugned order under Section 148A(d), directing the Assessing Officer to issue a fresh reasoned order after considering the reply of the Petitioner.
Issues: Whether the mandatory statutory period for responding to a notice under Section 148A(b) was adhered to and if the notice was valid given the insufficient time provided.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the Petitioner was entitled to a minimum period of seven days for response, underscoring the procedural rights conferred under the statutory framework.
Result: The impugned order set aside and the matter remanded for a fresh decision.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to notice under income tax act. (Para 1) |
| 2. right to adequate response time for notices. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 3. agreement to remand for fresh assessment. (Para 4) |
| 4. order for fresh reasoned decision. (Para 5) |
JUDGMENT
Manmohan, J. (Oral):
C.M.No.27835/2022
Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
Accordingly, the application stands disposed of.
W.P.(C) No.9293/2022 & C.M.No.27834/2022
1. Present writ petition has been filed challenging the notice issued under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short `the Act') dated 23rd March, 2022 and the order passed under Section 148A(d) of the Act dated 30th March, 2022 for the Assessment Year 2018-19.
2. Learned counsel for the Petitioner states that only three days' time was granted to the Petitioner to respond as against the mandatory statutory period of at least seven days. He further states that though the annexure annexed with the notice granted the Petitioner eight days' time to respond, yet the e-filing submission portal was closed on 26th March, 2022 itself in violation of the statutory mandate of Section 148A (b) of the Act.
3. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner relies on the decision of this Court in Shri Sai Co-operative Thrift and Credit Society Ltd Versus ITO, Ward 43-6 [W.P.(C) No.7385/2022], wherein it has been held that under Section 148A(b) of the Act, a minimum time of seven days has to be granted to the Assessee to file its reply to the show cause notice.
4. Issue notice. Learned counsel for the Respondent on instructions states that the Respondent-Revenue has no objection if the present matter is remanded back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision in accordance with law.
5. Consequently, the impugned order passed under Section 148A(d) of the Act dated 30th March, 2022 for the Assessment Year 2018-19 is set aside and the Assessing Officer is directed to pass a fresh reasoned order in accordance with law after considering the reply of the Petitioner, which is directed to be filed within a week. 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.
