ANAND RASTOGI AND ANOTHER vs. UNION OF INDIA, THROUGH THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE AND 4 OTHERS

WTAX/4815/2025HC AllahabadUPHC01500291202522 September 20252 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that no interference was required at this stage. The Court reasoned that the notice issued was merely a summons requiring the petitioners to appear and produce documents, either personally or through an authorized representative. The Court viewed this as a procedural step in the assessment process. Consequently, the High Court directed the petitioners to appear before the concerned authorities on October 14, 2025, at 11:00 A.M., explicitly stating that no adjournment would be granted. The writ petition was disposed of with this direction. No specific issue regarding the merits of the assessment or the validity of the summons beyond its procedural nature was decided.

What were the facts?

The petitioners were summoned under Section 131(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by income tax authorities in Kolkata. They appeared and provided explanations. Subsequently, a notice was also issued by the jurisdictional officer in Bareilly, where the petitioners filed their returns. The present writ petition challenges the notice issued by the Bareilly officer. The High Court observed that the notice was merely a summons for appearance and production of documents.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court should interfere at this stage when the notice issued is a summon for appearance and production of documents under Section 131(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961? Assessee's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the petitioners regarding the legality or propriety of the notice itself. The focus appears to be on the procedural aspect of the summons. Revenue's Contention: The revenue, through its counsel, likely argued that the notice was a valid procedural step under Section 131(1A) and that the High Court should not intervene at this preliminary stage, as the petitioners were only being asked to appear and provide documents. The judgment implicitly accepts this position by stating no interference is required.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 131(1A)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT TAX No. - 4815 of 2025 Court No. - 3 HON'BLE SHEKHAR B. SARAF, J. HON'BLE PRAVEEN KUMAR GIRI, J.

1.

Heard Sri Arka Pratim Chowdhury, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Abhishek Shukla, learned counsel for the respondent no. 3 and 4, Sri Naveen Chandra Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent no. 1 and Sri Anurag Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no. 5. 2. It appears that the petitioners were summoned under section 131(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Income Tax authorities at Kolkata. The petitioners appeared before the authorities and furnished explanation. A notice was also issued by the juri ictional officer at Bareilly. Since the petitioners filed their returns in Bareilly, this officer has the authority to issue the notice under section 131(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. In light of the same, we are of the view that no interference is required by this Court, at this stage, since the notice is only a summon to appear and to produce the documents either personally or through an authorized representative. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Anurag Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : A.S.G.I., Abh

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 131(1A)

All 443 judgments and leading authorities on Section 131(1A) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →