Vipul Kothari vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax

PDF · subscribers
WPT/10/2020HC ChhattisgarhCGHC01043821201915 January 2020Author: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE P. SAM KOSHY2 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that in view of the fact that a final assessment order had been passed on December 18, 2019, the matter had become of only academic interest. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed of. The Court left open the questions raised by the petitioner to be agitated in an appropriate proceeding, including an appeal against the assessment order. The operative direction was to dispose of the writ petition with liberty to the petitioner to pursue other remedies. No specific issue was left undecided, as the petition itself was disposed of on the ground of becoming infructuous.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Vipul Kothari, filed a writ petition challenging a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act. The petition was filed on December 13, 2019. During the proceedings, the counsel for the Income Tax Department submitted that a final assessment order had been passed on December 18, 2019. This subsequent order was stated to be appealable under Section 246A of the Income Tax Act. The Department produced the assessment order dated December 18, 2019, which was taken on record by the Court.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the writ petition challenging the notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act has become infructuous in light of the subsequent passing of the final assessment order. (Question of law) Assessee's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the assessee's counsel regarding the challenge to the Section 148 notice or the subsequent assessment order. Revenue's Contention: The Department argued that the final assessment order passed on December 18, 2019, has rendered the issue involved in the writ petition infructuous. They further contended that the subsequent order is appealable under Section 246A of the Income Tax Act.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 246A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

-1- NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPT No. 10 of 2020

1.

Vipul Kothari, 21 Mahavir Colony, Durg, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner Versus

1.

The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Raipur – 2, Central Revenue Building, Civil Lines, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

2.

The Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(4), Bhilai. ---Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Ashok Patil, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Amit Chaudhari along with Mr. Ajay Kumrani, Advocate :

adfasf Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 16.01.2020

1.

The challenge in the present writ petition is to the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act.

2.

The writ petition was filed on 13.12.2019. Today, when the matter is taken up, the learned counsel for the Department submits that the Department has in the meanwhile passed the final assessment order itself and as such the issue involved in the case has become infructuous and the subsequent order passed on 18.12.2019 is itself an appealable order under Section 246A of the Income Tax Act.

3.

The counsel for the Department produced the order dated 18.12.2019 to the Court, the said order is taken on record.

-2-

4.

In view of the fact that an assessment order has since been passed on 18.12.2019, in the opinion of this Court the matter as such has become of only academic interest. Accordingly, the present writ petition stands disposed of leaving open the questions, which were raised by the petitioner in this petition to be agitated in an appropriate proceeding including appeal, which the petitioner may prefer challenging the assessment order.

5.

With the aforesaid observations and liberty, the present writ petition stands disposed of. (P. Sam Koshy) Judge Rahul

More judgments on Section 148

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

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →