Cluster Overseas Private Limiited vs Income Tax Officer

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

DELHI HIGH COURT
MANMOHAN, MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA
Cluster Overseas Private Limiited – Appellant
Versus
Income Tax Officer – Respondent

Table of Content
1. validity of section 148 notice with distinct dins. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. order disposing of the petition with directions. (Para 5 , 17)
3. challenge to the validity of section 148 notices. (Para 6 , 7 , 8)
4. legal implications of notice issuance timelines under section 148. (Para 9 , 10 , 16)
5. technical issues regarding notice issuance. (Para 11 , 12)
6. disputed facts regarding issuance date and verification of records. (Para 13 , 14 , 15)

JUDGMENT

Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, J. (Oral)

CM APPL. 13497/2022

Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

Accordingly, this application is disposed of.

CM APPL. No. 26039/2022

1. The said application has been filed by the petitioner contending that the Section 148 notice served through Speed Post and the notice available on the ITBA Portal bear distinct Document Identification Numbers (`DIN'). It is contended that upon verification it was found that the Section 148 notice sent through speed post, which bears the DIN & Notice No: ITBA/AST/S/148/2020-21/1032022972(1) does not exist on the ITBA Portal. It is stated that no record of the said DIN is available on the ITBA portal and no explanation for this has been offered

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

DELHI HIGH COURTMANMOHAN, MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORACluster Overseas Private Limiited – AppellantVersusIncome Tax Officer – Respondent

DELHI HIGH COURT
MANMOHAN, MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA
Cluster Overseas Private Limiited – Appellant
Versus
Income Tax Officer – Respondent