GURCHARAN SINGH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1 (1)

PDF · subscribers
CWP/8959/2022HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01043631202209 September 2024Author: MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the Assessing Officer had a statutory duty to consider the reply filed by the assessee before passing an order under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court found that the reply filed by the petitioner on March 24, 2022, was not considered when the order dated March 31, 2022, was drafted and passed. This was evidenced by the fact that the revenue had to raise an issue with the ITBA Helpdesk on May 23, 2022, to retrieve the assessee's response, which was subsequently confirmed to be available. The Court relied on a previous judgment by a Coordinate Bench in CWP-8784-2022 (Saroj Rani vs. Income Tax Officer) which emphasized the importance of considering the assessee's reply. Consequently, the Court set aside the order dated March 31, 2022, and directed the Assessing Officer to download the available reply and pass a fresh speaking order after considering it. The petitioner was granted liberty to challenge the fresh order if aggrieved.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Gurcharan Singh, filed a writ petition challenging an order passed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Bathinda, under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner contended that their reply, filed on March 24, 2022, was not considered before the order dated March 31, 2022, was passed. The revenue, in its reply, stated that the petitioner's reply did not appear in their records, and an issue was raised with the ITBA Helpdesk on May 23, 2022, to resolve the missing response. The ITBA Helpdesk subsequently provided a solution indicating the response was inwarded from the e-filing portal and available for download.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Assessing Officer failed to consider the reply filed by the assessee before passing the order under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, thereby violating the statutory requirement to consider the assessee's response. Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that their reply dated March 24, 2022, was not considered by the Assessing Officer when passing the order under Section 148A(d) on March 31, 2022. This failure to consider the reply renders the order invalid. Revenue's Contention: The revenue initially stated that the assessee's reply did not appear in their records. However, subsequent information from the ITBA Helpdesk indicated that the reply was indeed inwarded and available for download, suggesting a technical issue rather than a deliberate omission. The revenue's argument implicitly acknowledges the availability of the reply but highlights the difficulty in accessing it at the time the order was drafted.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148A(d)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CWP-8959-2022 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 232 CWP-8959-2022 (O&M) Decided on : 09.09.2024 Gurcharan Singh . . . Petitioner(s) Versus Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Bathinda . . . Respondent(s) CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH PRESENT: Mr. Prince Goyal, Advocate for the petitioner(s). Ms. Urvashi Dhugga, Sr. Standing Counsel for the respondent(s). **** SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA

, J. (Oral)

1.

Both the counsel are ad idem that the issue raised in the present writ petition stands duly adjudicated by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP-8784-2022, titled as, “Saroj Rani vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Bathinda”, decided on 20 th February, 2023. In that case, although the reply was filed, but the same had not been taken into consideration and the order under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for brevity, ‘the Act’) had been passed. This Court observed as under:- “ The above said provision makes it abundantly clear that it is the duty of the Assessing Officer to consider the reply filed by the assessee. In the present case, the reply was already received by the department as it is evident from the reply filed by the respondent. However, the only ground taken in not considering the reply is that on earlier date i.e. 28.03.2022 the order had been drafted and had been sent to the Principal Chief Commissioner for approval. However, as per JAWALA RAM 2024.09.12 19:22 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

CWP-8959-2022 (O&M) noting (Annexure R-2), it is clear that on 28.03.2022 when the order was sent for approval it was sent back for some correction and on 29.03.2022, the Assessing Officer was already in possession of the reply. Keeping in view the aforesaid judgment passed by the Delhi High Court, the instant petition is allowed and orders dated 31.03.2022 (Annexures P-4 and P-5) are being set aside and direction is given to the Assessing Officer to pass a fresh order after examining the reply dated 29.03.2022 filed by the petitioner (Annexure P-2) and pass a speaking order thereafter in accordance with law.”

2.

In the present case, as per the reply filed by the respondent – revenue, it is stated that the reply filed by the assessee on 24th March, 2022, did not appear in the account of this office and as per record, the incident bearing No.1748977 was raised by the Assessing Officer through ITBA Helpdesk Service on 23rd May, 2022, thereby, requesting to provide solution, as the reply of the assessee is not showing on ITBA system. The ITBA Helpdesk provided the solution as under:- “ Dear user, assessee response has been inwarded from e-filing portal and available to download now from case history/notings screen. Kindly download 7-zip application in system to open files with .gz extension.”

3.

Since the reply filed by the petitioner – assessee was not available, when order under Section 148-A(d) of the Act, was drafted on 29th March, 2022 and submitted to the higher authorities for approval and final order was passed on 31.03.2022, we are satisfied that the reply has not been considered, which is sine qua non for passing an order.

4.

In view of above, we allow this writ petition and set-aside the JAWALA RAM 2024.09.12 19:22 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

CWP-8959-2022 (O&M) order dated 31.03.2022, passed by the respondent – revenue under Section 148-A(d) of the Act and direct the respondent – revenue to download the reply, which is already available in the ITBA Helpdesk (as quoted above) and after considering the said reply, they would be free to pass a fresh order. If such an order is passed, the petitioner – assessee would be free to assail the same, if aggrieved from it in any manner. It is made clear that since the order was passed under Section 148-A(d) of the Act, coming in the new regime, the concerned Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, who would examine the same, as per the position existing on 31st March, 2022. Petition stands disposed of. Pending misc. application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA) JUDGE (SANJAY VASHISTH) JUDGE September 09, 2024 J.Ram Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reportable: Yes/No JAWALA RAM 2024.09.12 19:22 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

More judgments on Section 148A(d)

All 544 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148A(d) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →