ANUJ KUMAR S/O SHRI OM PRAKASH vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

Facts

The petitioner, Anuj Kumar, did not file an income tax return for Assessment Year 2015-16, stating his salary was below the taxable limit. The Income Tax Department received information regarding the petitioner's purchase of immovable property during that year. Consequently, proceedings under Section 148-A(b) were initiated, with a notice issued on March 17, 2022, uploaded on the portal and served via postal department. The petitioner failed to file a reply within the stipulated time, leading to an order under Section 148-A(d) being passed on March 28, 2022. Subsequently, proceedings under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, were initiated. The petitioner filed a reply to the Section 148 notice dated April 2, 2022. The petitioner's grievance is that the Department is not considering his reply while proceeding under Section 148.

Held

The High Court disposed of the writ petition with a specific direction to the respondents. It held that the respondents, while proceeding under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, must consider the reply already filed by the petitioner. Furthermore, the respondents are also directed to consider any other reply that the petitioner may file within fifteen days from the date of the order. The court did not delve into the merits of the case or the validity of the Section 148-A(d) order, but rather focused on ensuring the petitioner's response is considered in the ongoing proceedings. The ratio is that procedural fairness requires the tax authorities to consider submissions made by the assessee in response to notices issued during reassessment proceedings.

Key Issues

1. Whether the respondents, while proceeding under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, are obligated to consider the reply filed by the petitioner to the notice issued under Section 148. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argues that the Department is not considering the reply filed by him in response to the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act. The petitioner relies on the procedural fairness expected in tax proceedings. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions from the revenue regarding this issue. The focus appears to be on the procedural direction.