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
Important Points
Subject
Taxation - Income Tax
Headnote
(B) Procedural fairness - It was held that the petitioner should have requested information/documents timely rather than waiting seven months to approach the court. (Para 4)
Facts of the case:
The petition was filed against an order issued on 31st March, 2022, for the Assessment Year 2018-19, claiming a violation of rights due to an ex-parte order without consideration of submitted response.
Findings of Court:
The court directed the respondent-revenue to supply incriminating material against the petitioner, allowing the petitioner to present contentions before the Assessing Officer.
Issues: The primary issue was the failure to consider the petitioner's response leading to an ex-parte order and delay in seeking information.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the petitioner should have timely requested necessary information and iterated procedural fairness principles.
Result: Writ petition disposed of directing the respondent to supply information.
| 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.
