Back
NIRAL R. MEHTA, BHARGAV D. KARIA
Ninaben Tusharbhai Shah – Appellant
Versus
Income Tax Officer, Ward 5(3)(1), Ahmedabad – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
BHARGAV D. KARIA, J.
1. Heard learned advocate Mr.Hardik V. Vora for the petitioner and learned Senior Standing Counsel Mr.Varun K. Patel with learned advocate Mr. Dev Patel for the for the respondent.
2. Rule, returnable forthwith. Learned Senior Standing Counsel Mr.Varun Patel waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of the respondent.
3. Having regard to the controversy involved in the petition in narrow compass, the same is taken up for final hearing with consent of learned advocates for the respective parties.
4. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 26th March, 2022 passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) as well as the notice dated 29th March, 2022 issued under Section 148 of the Act.
5. The brief facts of the case are as under :
5.1. The petitioner is an individual and filed her return of income for Assessment Year 2018-19 on 03.08.2018 declaring total income at Rs.8,80,390/-. The return of the income was processed under Section 143(1) of the Act.
5.2. A notice dated 24th March, 2022 under Section 148A(b) of the Act which was digitally signed at 03:31
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the notice under Section 148A(b) must provide the assessee with not less than seven days to submit a reply, and the issuance of notices must c....
The court established that failing to consider a taxpayer's submission violates procedural fairness in tax assessments, necessitating the annulment of prior notices.
The main legal point established is that the delay in issuance of a notice beyond the limitation period and the inchoate nature of a digitally signed notice can lead to the quashing of the notice and....
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.
Notice issued without granting statutory time to respond violated the principles of natural justice, rendering the order invalid.
Section 148A advisedly uses the expression ‘enquiry’.
Section 148A(c) has been violated as it casts a duty on the Assessing Officer, by using the expression ‘shall’, to consider the reply of the Petitioner/assessee in response to notice under Section 14....
Reassessing without a hearing contravenes natural justice principles; proceedings must ensure opportunities for taxpayer representation.
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
