NITIN SANKHLA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
WPT/85/2022HC ChhattisgarhCGHC01009979202203 April 2022Author: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PARTH PRATEEM SAHU2 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court noted that during the pendency of the writ petition, the respondents had finalized the assessment and issued a final assessment order. The revenue pointed out that the petitioner had an effective statutory remedy of appeal under Section 246 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. In light of these changed circumstances, the learned counsel for the petitioner sought permission to withdraw the writ petition with the liberty to challenge the final assessment order. The Court, therefore, dismissed the writ petition as withdrawn, granting the petitioner the liberty to pursue the statutory appeal against the final assessment order. No decision was made on the merits of the petitioner's original contentions regarding the non-consideration of objections.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Nitin Sankhla, filed a writ petition challenging a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner contended that the Assessing Officer failed to consider his objections to the reasons recorded for issuing the notice, despite the petitioner having submitted them and possessing an acknowledgment. The petitioner relied on the Supreme Court's decision in GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. vs. Income Tax Officer. During the pendency of the writ petition, the respondents finalized the assessment and issued a final assessment order. The respondents argued that the petitioner had an efficacious statutory remedy of appeal under Section 246 of the Act.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the respondent authorities failed to consider the objections raised by the petitioner against the reasons recorded for issuing the notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, contrary to the principles laid down in GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. vs. Income Tax Officer? Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the respondent authorities incorrectly recorded that he failed to furnish objections to the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer, when in fact, he had submitted his objections and had proof of submission. This arbitrary action was contrary to the Supreme Court's observations in GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. Revenue's Contention: The revenue submitted that a final assessment order had been issued during the pendency of the writ petition, and the petitioner possessed an efficacious statutory remedy of appeal under Section 246 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 246

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPT No. 85 of 2022 • Nitin Sankhla S/o Shri Umed Chand Sankhla, Aged About 35 Years R/o 1st Floor, Navkar Bullion, Jawahar Chowk, Above Navin Jewewllers, Durg, Chhattisgarh. 491001. ---- Petitioner Versus

1.

Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle 1 (1), Bhiulai, Income Tax Office, 32/32 Bunglows, Bhilai, Chhattisgarh. 490001

2.

Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax Range 1, Bhilai, Income Tax Officer, 32/32 Bunglows, Bhilai, Chhatisgarh 490001

3.

National

Faceless

Assessment

Centre,

Delhi

Through Additional/joint/deputy/assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax/income Tax Officer, Income Tax Department, North Block, New Delhi 110001 ---- Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For Petitioner : Shri Apurv Goyal, Advocate For Respondent/State : Shri Ajay Kumrani, Advocate ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order on Board 04.04.2022

1.

Shri Apurv Goyal, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner in this Writ petition has challenged issuance of notice under Section 148 of Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short,’IT Act’). He submits that apart from other grounds raised in this writ petition, one of the grounds raised by petitioner is that objection raised by petitioner before Assessing Officer upon receiving the reasons recorded by Assessing Officer for issuance notice was not considered by respondent authorities while considering objections raised by petitioner. He submits that as per law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in reported in (2003) 1 SCC 72, Hon’ble Supreme Court observed the procedure to be adopted by respondent authority after issuance of notice under Section 148 of the IT Act. After receiving notice under Section 148 of the IT Act, petitioner submitted an application demanding reasons recorded by Assessing

Wpt 85 of 2022 2 Officer for initiating proceedings for issuance of notice under Section 148 of the IT Act. Based on application, respondent authorities supplied copy of reasons recorded by Assessing Officer and thereafter, petitioner submitted objection on 14.02.2022. Respondent authorities while considering objections raised by petitioner recorded that petitioner failed to furnish objections to reasons recorded by Assessing Officer, which is not correct. Petitioner has placed on record copy of acknowledgment of submission of his objection before the authority on the reasons recorded by Assessing Officer. Respondent authorities acted in arbitrary manner and contrary to observations in case of GKN Driveshafts (supra), hence, writ petition was filed to interdict with issuance of notice under Section 148 of the IT Act.

2.

Shri Ajay Kumarrani, learned counsel for respondent-1 would submit that during pendency of this writ petition, respondent parties have finalized assessment and final assessment order has already been issued. The petitioner is having efficacious statutory remedy of appeal under Section 246 of the Act of 1961. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that in view of changed circumstances, he may be permitted to withdraw this petition with liberty to challenge the final assessment order passed against petitioner.

4.

In view of above submission of learned counsel for the petitioner, Writ Petition is dismissed as withdrawn with aforesaid liberty. (Parth Prateem Sahu) JUDGE

padma

More judgments on Section 148

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →