RAMESH CHAND AGARWAL SON OF SHRI BHORELAL AGARWAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
CW/7491/2023HC RajasthanRJHC02035335202301 July 2024Bench: AVNEESH JHINGAN,ASHUTOSH KUMAR2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the impugned order dated 13.04.2023 was flawed because the specific objection raised by the petitioner regarding the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer at Alwar was not dealt with. The Court referred to Section 148A(c) of the Act, which mandates that the reply furnished by the assessee must be considered while passing an order under Section 148A(d). Since this procedural requirement was not met, the Court set aside the impugned order. The matter was remitted back to the respondent (Assessing Officer at Alwar) to decide the objection afresh in accordance with the law. The Court also clarified that the stay operating during the pendency of the writ petition would continue until the objections are decided and that the petitioner would be at liberty to avail further remedies if aggrieved by the decision on the objection.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Ramesh Chand Agarwal, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 13.04.2023 passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. For Assessment Year 2016-17, the petitioner had initially filed a return at Imphal, and the assessment was finalized under Section 143(3). Subsequently, the Assessing Officer at Alwar issued a notice dated 24.03.2023 under Section 148A(b). Upon receiving the reasons, the petitioner raised an objection regarding the jurisdiction of the Alwar Assessing Officer, asserting that they were being assessed at Imphal. The petitioner's primary grievance was that this specific objection concerning jurisdiction was not addressed in the impugned order.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Assessing Officer at Alwar had the jurisdiction to issue the notice under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, when the assessee was being assessed at Imphal? (Question of law and fact, turning on Section 148A). Assessee's Contention: The Assessing Officer at Alwar lacked jurisdiction because the assessee was being assessed at Imphal, and this specific objection was not dealt with in the impugned order. Revenue's Contention: The sale and purchase of land were made by the petitioner at Alwar, and the PAN number was not disclosed. The petitioner refuted the claim that the PAN number was not disclosed.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148A,Section 148A(b),Section 148A(c),Section 148A(d),Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

[2024:RJ-JP:27202-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7491/2023 Ramesh Chand Agarwal Son of Shri Bhorelal Agarwal, Aged About 64 Years, Currently Residing at 34A Rajpath Nagar, Lajpath Nagar, Scheme No.2, Alwar-301001 Permanent Resident of Thangal Bazar, Imphal, Manipur. ----Petitioner Versus Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1), Alwar Having Its Address At Central Revenue Building, Moti Doongri Road, Alwar. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Siddharth Ranka, Adv. with Mr. Rohan Chatter, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anuroop Singhi, Adv. with Mr. N.S. Bhati, Adv. & Mr. Aditya Khandelwal, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR Order 01/07/2024 1. This petition is filed seeking quashing of order dated 13.04.2023 passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’). 2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner filed a return for Assessment Year 2016-17 at Imphal, the case was taken up on scrutiny and assessment was finalized under Section 143 (3) of the Act. The Assessing Officer at Alwar issued notice dated 24.03.2023 under Section 148A(b) of the Act. On supply of reasons, the petitioner filed an objection that the Assessing Officer at Alwar had no jurisdiction as assessee was being assessed at Imphal. 3. The short grievance raised is that specific objection raised of jurisdiction was not dealt in the impugned order.

[2024:RJ-JP:27202-DB] (2 of 2) [CW-7491/2023] 4. Learned counsel for the respondent defends the impugned order. Contention is that the sale and purchase of the land was made by the petitioner at Alwar and PAN number was not disclosed. 5. The contention that the PAN number was not disclosed is refuted by counsel for the petitioner. 6. Section 148A was inserted in the Act of Finance Act of 2021, whereby, the procedure to be adopted for initiation of reassessment proceedings was laid. Sub-Section (c) of Section 148A of the Act stipulates that the reply furnished by the assessee has to be considered while passing order under Section 148(d) of the Act. 7. From perusal of the impugned order, it is evident that sole objection raised by the petitioner was not specifically dealt by the respondent. 8. The impugned order dated 13.04.2023 is set aside, the matter is remitted back to the respondent to decide the objection afresh in accordance with law. 9. In order to avoid delay, let the petitioner appear in the office of respondent on 11.07.2024 at 11:00 AM. 10. It is clarified that during pendency of the writ petition stay was operating and the same shall continue till the objections are decided by the authority. 11. Needless to say that the petitioner if aggrieved of the decision on the objection, shall be at liberty to avail remedies in accordance with law. 12. The petition is disposed of. (ASHUTOSH KUMAR),J (AVNEESH JHINGAN),J HS/Mohita/96

More judgments on Section 148A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →