RAM KISHORE KADEL SON OF SHRI HARI RAM KADEL vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
CW/8947/2023HC RajasthanRJHC02043345202322 November 2023Author: MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA,SHUBHA MEHTA2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the writ petition was not maintainable. The Court noted that the petitioner had failed to disclose the crucial fact that an assessment order had been passed prior to the filing of the writ petition. Furthermore, the order under Section 148A(d) was passed much earlier, and the petitioner had participated in the assessment proceedings without challenging it. The Court found that the petitioner had an alternative remedy of appeal available under the law. Citing its own decision in Bhag Chand Jangid, the Court declined to entertain the writ petition. The petitioner was granted liberty to raise all grounds in an appeal before the appellate authority, which was directed to consider all points raised by the petitioner. The writ petition was disposed of with this liberty.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Ram Kishore Kadel, filed a writ petition challenging an order passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The respondents are various income tax authorities. The petitioner failed to disclose that an assessment order had already been passed prior to the filing of the writ petition, possibly only a day before. The order under Section 148A(d) was passed on July 25, 2022, and the petitioner participated in the assessment proceedings without challenging it. The writ petition was filed just a day before the assessment order was passed. The petitioner also failed to adequately instruct counsel on subsequent hearing dates.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable when an assessment order has been passed and an alternative remedy of appeal is available to the petitioner? (Question of law and fact, concerning the principles of alternative remedy and suppression of material facts). Assessee's Contention: The petitioner challenged the order under Section 148A(d) on various grounds (not specified in detail). However, the primary issue revolves around the maintainability of the writ petition given the subsequent assessment order and the petitioner's conduct. Revenue's Contention: The revenue argued that the petitioner had not disclosed the passing of the assessment order and had participated in assessment proceedings after the order under Section 148A(d) was passed. They relied on the principle that writ petitions are not maintainable when alternative remedies exist, citing the case of Bhag Chand Jangid Versus Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax Rajasthan & Others.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148A(d)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
[2023:RJ-JP:35560-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8947/2023 Ram Kishore Kadel Son Of Shri Hari Ram Kadel, Aged About 73 Years, Resident Of C-12/103 Prathvi Appartment, Prathviraj Road, C-Scheme, Jaipur - 302001 ----Petitioner Versus 1. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-6, Jaipur Having Its Address At Having Its Address At New Central Revenue Building, Statue Circle, Bhagwan Das Road, Jaipur 2. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Jaipur-2, Jaipur Having Its Address At New Central Revenue Building, Statue Circle, Bhagwan Das Road, Jaipur 3. Central Board Of Direct Taxes, Department Of Revenue, Ministry Of Finance, Government Of India, Having Its Address At North Block, New Delhi, Through Its Chairman 4. The National Faceless Assessment Centre, Income Tax Department, Ministry Of Finance, Inside Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium, New Delhi ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Siddharth Ranka, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sandeep Pathak, Advocate Mr. Jaya P. Pathak, Advocate HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SHUBHA MEHTA

Order 22/11/2023 Heard. Though the order passed under Section 148A (d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 1961”) is challenged on various grounds, we are informed today that infact in the present case the assessment order was passed prior to filing of the writ petition and this fact has not been disclosed by the petitioner while filing the writ petition, may be

[2023:RJ-JP:35560-DB] (2 of 2) [CW-8947/2023] that assessment order was passed only a day before filing of the petition. It appears that the petitioner has not duly instructed the counsel on several subsequent dates when this case was listed for hearing i.e. on 27.09.2023, 20.10.2023 & 17.11.2023. We also find that in the present case the order under Section 148A (d) of the Act of 1961 was passed way-back on 25.07.2022 but it was not challenged by the petitioner but he participated in the assessment proceedings and just a day before passing of the assessment order, the petitioner filed the writ petition. This Court in almost similar circumstances refused to entertain the writ petition taking into consideration that there exists an alternative remedy, in the case of Bhag Chand Jangid Versus Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax Rajasthan & Others, D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5819/2023 decided on 17.04.2023. Therefore, in these circumstances, we are not inclined to entertain this petition and leave the petitioner to raise all the grounds which have been raised in the petition by way of an appeal as remedy is available to the petitioner under the law. The appellate authority, shall take into consideration all the points that have been raised by the petitioner in the petition to assail correctness, legality and validity of various orders, proceedings including assessment order. With the aforesaid liberty, the writ petition stands disposed of. (SHUBHA MEHTA),J (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),ACTING CJ Karan/200

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 →