Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
MANMOHAN, MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA
Kautilya Finance B.V. – Appellant
Versus
Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to notice and order under income tax act (Para 1) |
| 2. claims of improper process and filing by respondent (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. court's review of procedural fairness and remand (Para 6 , 8) |
| 4. writ petition disposed with directions (Para 7 , 9) |
JUDGMENT
Manmohan, J. (Oral)
C.M.No.29831/2022
Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
Accordingly, the application stands disposed of.
W.P.(C) No.10361/2022 & C.M.No.29830/2022
1. Present writ petition has been filed challenging the notice dated 31st March, 2022 issued under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the `Act') as well as order dated 25th April, 2022 passed by the Respondent under Section 148A(d) of the Act and notice dated 25th April, 2022 under Section 148 of the Act issued by the Respondent for Assessment Year 2018-19. Petitioner also seeks a direction to the Respondent to state on affidavit as to how many taxpayers bearing the name "Kautilya Finance BV" are registered on the ITBA portal; how many forms in Form 15-CA issued by E Homes Infrastructure (P) Ltd. in respect of the Petitioner during Assessment Year 2018-19 amounting to Rs.16,13,44,657/-, did t
Reassessing without a hearing contravenes natural justice principles; proceedings must ensure opportunities for taxpayer representation.
The court established that failing to consider a taxpayer's submission violates procedural fairness in tax assessments, necessitating the annulment of prior notices.
The failure of the Assessing Officer to consider the petitioner's reply before issuing an order under Section 148A(d) constitutes a breach of natural justice, invalidating the order.
Section 148A advisedly uses the expression ‘enquiry’.
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.
The Assessing Officer must consider the reply of the Assessee before issuing an order under Section 148A(d), failing which it violates natural justice.
For a valid reassessment under Income Tax Act, prior recording of reasons for income escapement is mandatory; failure to do so renders the notice void, allowing proceedings on a subsequent properly s....
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....
Second notice under Section 148A(b) is invalid when an initial notice under Section 148 has already been served; Supreme Court directions pertain to a different timeframe and do not apply.
Assessing Officers must consider submissions from assessee under Section 148A(d) before issuing notices under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act; failing to do so invalidates the notice.
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
