BALAJI INSTITUTE OF HEALTH AND MEDICAL EDUCATION SOCIETY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND ORS.

PDF · subscribers
CWP/20467/2023HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01115179202312 October 2023Author: MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI,MR. JUSTICE ALOK JAIN2 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court allowed the petition. The court noted that the respondents' counsel, on instructions from the Income Tax Officer, confirmed that the amount deposited by the petitioner was Rs. 43,70,000/-, which was erroneously recorded as Rs. 87,40,000/- in the impugned order. Upon verification, it was established that this amount was below Rs. 50,00,000/-. The court reasoned that in view of Section 149(1)(b) of the Act, no proceedings can be initiated if the amount is below Rs. 50,00,000/-. Therefore, based on the information provided by the respondents, the court set aside Annexures P-3, P-4, and P-6, effectively quashing the re-assessment proceedings. The ratio decidendi is that re-assessment proceedings initiated under Section 148A and 148 of the Act for assessment year 2016-2017 are invalid if the amount in dispute falls below the threshold prescribed in Section 149(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and this fact is conceded by the revenue.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Balaji Institute of Health and Medical Education Society, filed a writ petition challenging a notice dated 21.08.2023 (Annexure P-6), an order under Section 148A(d) dated 29.03.2023 (Annexure P-3), and a consequential notice under Section 148 dated 29.03.2023 (Annexure P-4). These actions pertained to re-assessment proceedings for assessment year 2016-2017 and were challenged as being without jurisdiction under Sections 148A, 149(1)(b), and 151A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. During the proceedings, the respondents' counsel informed the court that the amount deposited by the petitioner was Rs. 43,70,000/-, which was incorrectly recorded as Rs. 87,40,000/- in the order dated 29.03.2023. This fact was verified, and the correct amount was found to be below Rs. 50,00,000/-.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the re-assessment proceedings initiated for assessment year 2016-2017 are devoid of jurisdiction under Sections 148A, 149(1)(b), and 151A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, considering the amount in dispute. Assessee's contention: The re-assessment proceedings are without jurisdiction. The petitioner argued that the notice and consequential orders were issued without proper application of mind and in contravention of the provisions of the Act, specifically Section 149(1)(b) which has a threshold for initiating proceedings based on the amount involved. Revenue's contention: The revenue, through its counsel, conceded that the amount deposited by the petitioner was Rs. 43,70,000/-, which was wrongly recorded as Rs. 87,40,000/-. They acknowledged that this amount is below the threshold of Rs. 50,00,000/- stipulated under Section 149(1)(b) for initiating such proceedings.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148A,Section 149(1)(b),Section 151A,Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
CWP-20467-2023 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 254 CWP-20467-2023 Date of decision: 12.10.2023 Balaji Institute of Health and Medical …Petitioner Education Society Versus Income Tax Officer & ors. …Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK JAIN Present : Mr. Nikhil Goyal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Gauri Neo Rampal Opal, Senior Standing Counsel for the respondents. RITU BAHRI, J. (Oral) Prayer in present petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is for issuance of the writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the notice dated 21.08.2023 (Annexure P-6) issued by respondent No.3, order under Section 148 A (d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) dated 29.03.2023 (Annexure P-3) and consequential notice under Section 148 of the Act dated 29.03.2023 (Annexure P-4) issued by respondent No.1 and the consequential re-assessment proceedings for assessment year 2016-2017 being devoid of jurisdiction under Sections 148A, 149 (1) (b) and 151 A of the Act. Learned counsel for the respondents, on instructions from Mr. Pawan Kumar Sharma, Income Tax Officer, Bhiwani, has informed that the amount deposited by the petitioner was Rs.43,70,000/-, which is wrongly recorded in order dated 29.03.2023 (Annexure P-3) as Rs.87,40,000/-. This Monika Verma 2023.10.16 11:35 I attest to the accuracy and

authenticity of this order/judgment Chandigarh

CWP-20467-2023 -2- fact has been verified that this amount is below Rs.50,00,000/-. Keeping in view the above, no proceedings can be initiated if the amount is below Rs.50,00,000/- under Section 149 (1) (b) of the Act. Therefore, in view of the information given by the respondents, this petition is allowed and Annexures P-3, P-4 and P-6 are hereby set aside. (RITU BAHRI) JUDGE 12.10.2023

(ALOK JAIN) monika

JUDGE Whether reasoned/speaking: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No Monika Verma 2023.10.16 11:35 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment Chandigarh

More judgments on Section 148A

All 3,543 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →