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
Important Points
Subject
Tax Law - Income Tax
Headnote
(B) Administrative Law - Issuance of writs and directions - Court emphasizes the importance of allowing revision petitions to ensure due process is followed. (Paras 2, 5)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner is a director in North Delhi Bullion Traders Pvt. Ltd. and seeks to quash the order of recovery dated 01.05.2019 by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax. Other directors had previously engaged in similar writs.
Findings of Court:
The writ petition was disposed of granting liberty to file a revision petition with no limitation issues.
Issues: The court addressed the legality of recovery orders and procedural redress available to the petitioner through revision petitions.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court’s decision hinged on allowing the pursuit of remedies through revision petitions as a fundamental aspect of legal recourse, a right not to be constrained by procedural limitations.
Result: Writ petition disposed of as per direction.
| 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.
