DELHI HIGH COURT
MANMOHAN, MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA
Mahashian Di Hatti Pvt. Limited – Appellant
Versus
Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenging notices issued under income tax act. (Para 1) |
| 2. allegations made without supporting evidence. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. requirement for specific material in notices. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 4. set aside vague notices and directions for specifics. (Para 8) |
| 5. rights of parties are left open; merits not commented. (Para 9 , 10) |
JUDGMENT
Manmohan, J. (Oral)
C.M.No. 37751/2022
Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
Accordingly, the application stands disposed of.
W.P.(C) No.12505/2022 & C.M.No.37750/2022
1. Present writ petition has been filed challenging the notice dated 18th May, 2022 issued under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (`the Act') and the order passed under Section 148A(d) of the Act and the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act dated 22nd July, 2022 for the Assessment Year 2014-15.
2. Learned senior counsel for the Petitioner states that the Respondent failed to comply with the direction of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Ashish Agarwal, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 543 inasmuch as it made far-fetched allegations without any supporting evidence.
3. He points out that in the show cause notice issued under Section 1
The Court affirmed that vague show cause notices issued under Section 148A(b) lack compliance with natural justice, necessitating clear material for Assessee responses.
Assessing Officers must provide specific details in notices for effective response by Assessee, adhering to principles of natural justice.
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.
Orders based on vague allegations without specific details violate the right to a fair hearing under tax law.
A show cause notice under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act must contain specific allegations of income escapement; its absence renders the assessment invalid.
Reassessing without a hearing contravenes natural justice principles; proceedings must ensure opportunities for taxpayer representation.
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.
The court established that failing to consider a taxpayer's submission violates procedural fairness in tax assessments, necessitating the annulment of prior notices.
Section 148A advisedly uses the expression ‘enquiry’.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.