CIT FARIDABAD vs. NEELAM CHOUDHARY

PDF · subscribers
ITA/635/2009HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01084764200919 February 2010Author: MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR,MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court noted the Revenue's contention that the ITAT's order contained a factual mistake, as approval from the Commissioner of Income Tax was obtained on 2.5.2003, prior to the issuance of the notice under Section 148. The Revenue argued that this was a rectifiable error and that the High Court should not be approached for a substantial question of law in such a scenario. The Court agreed with the Revenue that the proper course of action would be for the Revenue to seek rectification of the ITAT's order. Consequently, the High Court relegated the Revenue to pursue this remedy in accordance with the law. The appeal was disposed of on this procedural ground, without deciding the substantial question of law.

What were the facts?

The Revenue (Commissioner of Income Tax, Faridabad) filed an appeal against an order dated 5.9.2008 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Delhi Bench. The ITAT held that a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was issued after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year. The original assessment for assessment year 1997-98 was completed under Section 143(3) on 31.3.2003, and the notice under Section 148 was issued on 6.5.2003. The dispute centered on whether such a notice could be issued after four years if prior approval from the Chief Commissioner or Commissioner of Income Tax was obtained under Section 151(1) of the Act.

What were the issues?

1. Whether a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, issued after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, is valid if prior approval from the Chief Commissioner or Commissioner of Income Tax has been obtained under Section 151(1) of the Act. The Revenue contended that there was a factual mistake in the ITAT's order, as approval from the Commissioner was indeed obtained on 2.5.2003, as evidenced by Annexure A-1. The Revenue argued that this factual error should have been rectified by the ITAT rather than the High Court being approached for a substantial question of law. The judgment does not record any specific arguments from the assessee (Smt. Neelam Choudhary).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 143(3),Section 151(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITA No. 635 of 2009 Date of decision: 19.02.2010 Commissioner of Income Tax, Faridabad ...Appellant Versus Smt. Neelam Choudhary ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.KUMAR HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Ms. Urvashi Dhugga, Advocate for the appellant.

1.

To be referred to the reporters or not?

2.

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M.KUMAR, J. The instant appeal filed by the Revenue is directed against order dated 5.9.2008 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench “B” New Delhi (for brevity `the Tribunal') holding that notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for brevity `the Act') was issued after the expiry of a period of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year. It is undisputed that original assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act was completed on 31.3.2003 and notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued on 6.5.2003 in respect of assessment year 1997-98. A period of four years had expired when the notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued. The only controversy raised is that such a notice can be issued after a period of four years when prior approval from the Chief Commissioner

ITA No. 635 of 209 -2- of the Income Tax or Commissioner of the Income Tax is obtained under Section 151 (1) of the Act. The case of the Revenue is that there is a factual mistake in the impugned order passed by the Tribunal in as much as approval from the Commissioner was obtained and in that regard reliance has been placed on document Annexure A-1 to show that the approval was obtained from the Commissioner of Income Tax, Faridabad on 2.5.2003. The aforesaid error has been pointed out by the counsel for the Revenue for which proper course would be by getting it rectified rather than approaching this Court for determination of a substantial question of law. Accordingly, we relegate the Revenue to seek remedy in accordance with law. This appeal is disposed of.

(M.M.KUMAR) JUDGE 19.02.2010 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) mk

JUDGE

More judgments on Section 148

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →