Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
MANMOHAN, MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA
Omesh Jain – Appellant
Versus
Income Tax Officer Ward 46(1), Delhi – Respondent
| 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 r
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
