Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Rajiv Shakdher, Tara Vitasta Ganju, JJ.
Pawan Jhalani - Appellant
Versus
Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax - Respondent
W.P.(C) 6488 of 2019, CM Nos. 27473 of 2019 & 37566 of 2019
Decided On : 16-12-2022
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. writ petition seeks to quash order under income tax act. (Para 1) |
| 2. petitioner is a director of north delhi bullion traders pvt. ltd. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 3. respondent asserts no objection to revising similar orders. (Para 4) |
| 4. court allows revision petition within stipulated time. (Para 5) |
| 5. rights of parties left open; applications closed. (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
JUDGMENT
[Physical Hearing/Hybrid Hearing (as per request)]
Rajiv Shakdher, J.: (ORAL)
1. The substantive prayers sought in the writ petition are as follows:
"1. To issue a writ, direction or order in the nature of Certiorari, Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order quashing the order dated 01.05.2019 passed by Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax u/s 179 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. To stay the operation of the recovery of demand arising out of the order dated 01.05.2019 passed u/s 179 of the income Tax Act as an Interim Relief..."
2. Dr Rakesh Gupta, who appears on behalf of the petitioner/assessee, says that the petitioner is a director in a company going by the name, North Delhi Bullion Traders Pvt. Ltd.
3. We are informed that apart from the petitioner/assessee, other directors of the aforementioned company had also approached this Court and that those writ petitions were withdrawn, with liberty to the said petitioners to file revision petitions under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short, "the Act"].
3.1. In this behalf, Dr Gupta has placed before us an order dated 21.02.2022 passed in the writ petitions preferred by other directors of North Delhi Bullion Pvt. Ltd; the lead petition being W.P.(C) 6609/2019, titled Kishan Kumar Munjal vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax.
4. Mr Vipul Agarwal, who appears on behalf of Mr Sanjay Kumar, senior standing counsel, says that the respondent/revenue would have no objection if an order on similar lines is passed.
5. Accordingly, as was direction issued in the aforementioned writ petition and other connected writ petitions, this writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the writ petitioner/assessee to file a revision petition under Section 264 of the Act.
5.1. In case a revision petition is preferred within three weeks of the receipt of a copy of the order passed today, the concerned authority will rule on the petition and not reject the same on the ground of limitation, as was the observation made by the coordinate bench in the aforementioned writ petitions.
6. Needless to add, since we have not examined the matter on merits, the rights and contentions of the parties are kept open.
7. Consequently, pending applications are closed.
8. The parties will act based on the digitally signed copy of the order.
A director may seek to challenge a tax recovery order through a writ petition, allowing subsequent rights to appeal through revision without limitation concerns.
The court ruled on the application of Articles 226 and 227 regarding interim tax relief, emphasizing that disputed tax demands require careful judicial consideration and timely hearings.
The court emphasized the importance of the Commissioner of Income Tax to dispose of the petitioner's application and accord a personal hearing, and allowed filing of written submissions. It also prov....
Timely disposal of revision applications under the Income Tax Act, 1961 is crucial, and the court has the authority to issue specific directives to ensure compliance.
The court reinforced the obligation of the revenue to execute prior orders from tax appellate authorities and to ensure timely refunds as mandated by law.
The court emphasized the right to adjudication of the show-cause notice and provided a safeguard against adverse decisions under the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The court ruled that an order under Section 179 cannot stand if the underlying demand against the company is set aside, necessitating a fresh evaluation by the tax authority.
Principles of natural justice must be adhered to in administrative proceedings, and failure to do so may result in the setting aside of orders and the requirement for a fair process.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the petitioner/assessee should be given an opportunity of hearing before deciding the revision petition on merits.
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
