SUNIL SARDA HUF vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
CW/5177/2022HC RajasthanRJHC02024904202210 January 2023Author: PANKAJ MITHAL,SHUBHA MEHTA2 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the writ petition does not survive because the reassessment proceedings, which were the subject of the challenge, have been directed to be dropped by the respondents. The Court observed that the purpose for which the writ petition was filed has been achieved. Therefore, the writ petition was disposed of as having served its purpose. No specific finding was made on the merits of the original reassessment notice, as the proceedings were dropped by the revenue itself. The operative direction was to dispose of the writ petition.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Sunil Sarda HUF, filed a writ petition before the Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench, challenging a notice dated 31.03.2021 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. This notice proposed to initiate reassessment proceedings for the assessment year 2013-14. The respondents, the Income Tax Officer and the National Faceless Assessment Centre, issued the notice. During the pendency of the writ petition, the respondents reviewed the reassessment proceedings for assessment years 2013-14 and 2014-15. Subsequently, on 26.03.2022, an order was passed directing the dropping of the reassessment proceedings for the assessment year 2013-14.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the writ petition survives when the reassessment proceedings challenged by the petitioner have been dropped by the respondents? (Question of law) The petitioner contended that the writ petition was filed challenging the notice for reassessment. The respondents, after reviewing the case, decided to drop the reassessment proceedings for the relevant assessment year. The petitioner argued that since the action challenged has been withdrawn, the purpose of the writ petition has been achieved. The revenue (respondents) did not appear to have made any specific arguments against the dropping of proceedings, as the judgment indicates their action led to the disposal of the writ petition.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5177/2022 Sunil Sarda Huf, Through Its Karta Shri Sunil Sarda S/o Shri R N Sarda, Aged About 54 Years, Addressed At Narain Nikunj, Near Kalyan Kunj, Shivaji Nagar, Madanganj Kishangarh 305801, Rajasthan, India. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, City Road, Kishangarh, Rajasthan, 305801. 2. National Faceless Assessment Centre, (Erstwhile Known As National E-Assessment Centre) Through Additional Commissioner Of Income Tax, Room No. 401, 2Nd Floor, E-Ramp, Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium, Delhi-110003. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajat Sharma for Mr. Prakul Khurana For Respondent(s) : Ms. Parinitoo Jain with Ms. Arihanta Goyal & Ms. Arushi Goyal HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. PANKAJ MITHAL HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SHUBHA MEHTA

Order 10/01/2023

1.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

2.

The petitioner has preferred this writ petition aggrieved by the notice dated 31.03.2021 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act in respect of the assessment year 2013-14. 3. The respondents by the aforesaid notice proposed to open the re-assessment proceedings against the petitioner for the relevant year.

(2 of 2) [CW-5177/2022]

4.

In the reply, documents have been annexed which show that on perusal of the notice issued for the assessment years 2013-14 and 2014-15, the respondents proposed to drop the assessment proceedings for the assessment year 2013-14 and ultimately on 26.03.2022, the proceedings were directed to be dropped.

5.

In view of the above, as the proceedings of re-assessment have been directed to be dropped, the writ petition does not survive and the purpose of filing the writ petition stands achieved, therefore, the writ petition stands disposed of. (SHUBHA MEHTA),J (PANKAJ MITHAL),CJ Sharma N.K./CHARU SONI /46

More judgments on Section 148

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →