GOURAV JAIN vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE - III, LUDHIANA

PDF · subscribers
CWP/28813/2018HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01100726201816 January 2019Author: MR. JUSTICE R.C. KATHURIA (RETD.),MR. JUSTICE HARINDER SINGH SIDHU2 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court allowed the withdrawal of the writ petition. The Court held that it shall be open to the petitioner(s) to take recourse to the remedies as may be available to him, in accordance with law. This implies that the petitioner is free to pursue the appellate remedy against the Assessment Order passed by the respondent. The Court did not decide on the merits of the original challenge to the notice under Section 148 or the objections order. The ratio decidendi is that a party can withdraw a writ petition and pursue alternative statutory remedies, provided such remedies are available and pursued within the prescribed time limits.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Gourav Jain, filed a writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India challenging a notice dated September 27, 2017, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and an order disposing of objections dated October 24, 2018, for the Assessment Year 2012-13. The respondent was the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-III, Ludhiana. Subsequently, the respondent passed an Assessment Order on December 24, 2018. The petitioner's counsel then sought to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to file an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) against the Assessment Order.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the petitioner should be allowed to withdraw the present writ petition with liberty to file an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) assailing the Assessment Order dated December 24, 2018, by taking all available pleas in accordance with law? Assessee's Contention: The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent had passed the Assessment Order on December 24, 2018. Accordingly, a prayer was made to allow withdrawal of the writ petition with liberty to file an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) against the aforesaid order, taking all pleas in accordance with law. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contention from the revenue regarding the withdrawal of the writ petition.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Decided on : 16.01.2019 Gourav Jain . . . Petitioner(s) Versus Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-III, Ludhiana . . . Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL PRESENT: Ms. Radhika Suri, Sr. Advocate with Mr. M.S. Kanda, Advocate for the petitioner(s). **** AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. (Oral) This order shall dispose of Civil Writ Petitions Nos. 28813 & 28878 of 2018, as according to the learned counsel for the petitioner(s), the issue involved therein is identical. However, the facts are being extracted from CWP No. 28813 of 2018. 2. Prayer made in this writ petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, is for quashing of notice dated 27.09.2017 (Annexure P-7), issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and order disposing of the objections dated 24th October, 2018 (Annexure P-10) for the Assessment Year 2012-13. 3. Learned Sr. counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent has passed the Assessment Order on 24th December, 2018. Accordingly, a prayer was made that she may be allowed to withdraw the present writ petition with liberty to the petitioner(s) to file an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) by assailing the aforesaid order by taking all the pleas, in accordance with law. JAWALA RAM 2019.01.22 11:43 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh - 2 -

4.

Dismissed as withdrawn. It shall, however, be open to the petitioner(s) to take recourse to the remedies as may be available to him, in accordance with law. (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE January 16, 2019 J.Ram (MANJARI NEHRU KAUL) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reportable: Yes/No JAWALA RAM 2019.01.22 11:43 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →