SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img



IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Manmohan, Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, JJ.
Mittal International - Appellant
Versus
Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 52 1 New Delhi - Respondent
W.P.(C) 15414 of 2022 & CM Appls. 47915-47916 of 2022
Decided On : 10-11-2022




The court ruled that proceedings based on a deactivated PAN are invalid, thus allowing the petitioner to file a supplementary response to the notice, ensuring fair assessment processes.

Headnote:(A) Income Tax Act, 1961 - Sections 148 and 148A(d) - Challenge to order and notice regarding income assessment for Assessment Year 2016-17 - Assessee’s use of deactivated PAN led to incorrect proceedings - Petitioner to be given opportunity to file supplementary reply to the notice. (Paras 1, 7)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner contends that all income tax related compliances were made under the correct, active PAN, whereas the respondent based proceedings on an incorrect, deactivated PAN, leading to an alleged income assessment of Rs.10,15,17,895/-.

Findings of Court:
The court determined that it would serve the interest of justice to allow the petitioner to respond to the notice and subsequently set aside the impugned order and notice for the Assessment Year 2016-17.

Issues: The primary issues included whether the proceedings based on the deactivated PAN were valid and whether the petitioner should be allowed to respond to the notice under Section 148A(b).

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for fair proceedings, directing the petitioner to file a supplementary reply and ensuring that the Assessing Officer considers the merits subsequently, without commenting on the underlying issues of the case.

Result: The impugned order and notice were set aside, allowing the petitioner to file a supplementary reply.

Table of Content
1. challenge to order under income tax act (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. parties' submissions on assessment (Para 4 , 5 , 6)
3. court's directive on proceedings (Para 7 , 8)

JUDGMENT

Manmohan, J. (Oral):

1. Present writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned order passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short `Act') and notice issued under Section 148 of the Act, both dated 26th July, 2022 for the Assessment Year 2016-17.

2. Learned counsel for the Petitioner states that the respondent has conducted the impugned proceedings on deactivated PAN AAAFM2684G. He states that the Petitioner has repeatedly communicated to the Respondents that it has made all income tax related compliances on correct/ active PAN AAAFM7234J as all relevant financial transactions have been fully recorded and accounted for in regular audited final accounts of Petitioner and thus no income has escaped assessment in its hands.

3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner emphasises that the Income Tax Department in pursuance to assessee's letters filed on 09th November, 2017 and 23rd November, 2017 for surrender of incorrect PAN has formally deactivated the same on 05th December, 2017. He states that there is subsequent correspondence by the Petitioner communicating the factum of deactivation of incorrect PAN as recently as 18th April, 2022.

4. Issue notice.

5. Mr. Ajit Sharma, learned counsel accepts notice on behalf of the respondent. He states that the assessee had filed no response on the merits of the case and hence Rs.10,15,17,895/-was determined as income having escaped assessment in the form of stock/bills of entry for import.

6. In rejoinder, learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn this Court's attention to pages 121 & 153 of the paper book which are response/replies given by the petitioner during the proceeding under Section 142(1) of the Act.

7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that interest of justice would be served if the petitioner is given an opportunity to file a supplementary reply to the notice issued under Section 148A(b) of the Act. Consequently, the impugned order passed under Section 148A(d) of the Act and the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act, both dated 26th July, 2022 for the Assessment Year 2017-18 are set aside and the petitioner is directed to file a supplementary reply to the notice issued under Section 148A(b) of the Act within four weeks. The Assessing Officer shall pass a fresh order under Section 148A(d) within eight weeks thereafter in accordance with law. Since the proceedings are being conducted on a deactivated PAN, the Assessing Officer is directed to entertain emails/hard copies of the replies/materials/evidences filed by the petitioner.

8. This Court clarifies that it has not commented on the merits of the controversy. The rights and contentions of all the parties are left open.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top