Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Manmohan, Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, JJ.
Omesh Jain - Appellant
Versus
Income Tax Officer Ward 46(1), Delhi - Respondent
W.P.(C) 15389 of 2022 & CM Appls. 47834-47835 of 2022
Decided On : 10-11-2022
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenging an order under section 148a(d) (Para 1) |
| 2. importance of timely submission of replies (Para 2) |
| 3. court's view on timeline for information requests (Para 3 , 4) |
| 4. court's directive for information provision (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
JUDGMENT
Manmohan, J. (Oral):
1. Present writ petition has been filed challenging the order passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short `Act') and consequential notice issued under Section 148 of the Act, both dated 31st March, 2022 for the Assessment Year 2018-19.
2. Learned counsel for the Petitioner states that against the notice dated 17th March, 2022, a prayer for adjournment was filed on 23rd March, 2022 requesting the Respondent to grant further time of ten days i.e. till 02nd April, 2022 for filing the reply. He states that the reply was in fact filed on 30th March, 2022 by way of an email as the online submission portal was closed by the Respondent. However, he states that without considering the said response, an ex-parte order was passed violating the statutory mandate, resulting in gross miscarriage of justice.
3. With the assistance of learned counsel for the petitioner, we have perused the reply dated 29th March, 2022 filed on 30th March, 2022 with the Assessing Officer. In the said reply, the petitioner has only asked to be served with the information/documents in possession of the respondent- revenue. The petitioner has given no reply on merits.
4. This Court is of the view that if the petitioner desired the requisite information/documents in possession of the respondent-revenue, he should have asked for the same on the day one and certainly not waited for seven months to approach this Court.
5. Since the matter has now progressed to the next stage i.e. Section 148 stage, this Court disposes of the present writ petition with a direction to the respondent-revenue to supply the incriminating material/information against the petitioner within four weeks.
6. The petitioner shall be at liberty to urge all its contentions and submissions before the Assessing Officer.
7. With the aforesaid direction and liberty the present writ petition and pending applications stand disposed of.
The court emphasized the importance of procedural fairness, stating that petitioners must timely seek necessary information to avoid ex-parte orders, maintaining that delays can lead to adverse legal....
Petitioners are entitled to adequate time to respond to tax notices, and minimal delays in requests for adjournments, especially for residents abroad, should not result in dismissal of rights.
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 main legal point established in the judgment is the right of the assessee to adequate time to respond to the Show Cause Notice and the exclusion of the period given to the assessee in computing t....
The court affirmed that taxpayers are entitled to adequate time to respond to notices under the Income Tax Act, and failure to consider timely responses constitutes a violation of statutory duties.
Notice issued without granting statutory time to respond violated the principles of natural justice, rendering the order invalid.
A time extension request must be honored to ensure fair administrative procedure under income tax regulations.
Statutory rights require a minimum seven-day response period under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, which was violated in this case.
Minimum time of seven days to be granted to the Assessee to file its reply to the show cause notice under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
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
