RAJKUMAR HANUMAN PRASAD JANGID vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD NO. 1, HISAR AND ORS.

PDF · subscribers
CWP/24187/2023HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01080521202330 January 2024Bench: MR. JUSTICE GURMEET SINGH SANDHAWALIA,MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the writ petition was not maintainable. The Court observed that Section 246(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, explicitly provides for appeals to the Commissioner (Appeals) against an order of assessment, re-assessment, or recomputation under Section 147 of the Act. The demand notice issued under Section 156 of the Act also duly informed the petitioner of their right to present an appeal. Therefore, the existence of an efficacious alternative remedy rendered the writ petition inappropriate. The Court advised the petitioner to file an appropriate application for interim relief before the Appellate Authority and also to file an application for condonation of delay, expressing hope that the Appellate Authority would decide the appeal on merits, considering the pendency before the High Court. The issue of the merits of the assessment itself was not decided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Rajkumar Hanuman Prasad Jangid, filed a writ petition challenging a notice dated 30.05.2022 issued under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2013-2014. This notice led to an assessment order passed under Section 147 read with Section 144B of the Act on 25.05.2023. A demand notice under Section 156 of the Act was also issued on the same date. Despite the availability of a statutory remedy of appeal under Section 246(1)(b) of the Act to the Commissioner (Appeals) against the assessment order, the petitioner averred that no equally efficacious and expeditious remedy existed, prompting the approach to the High Court. The writ petition was filed on 26.06.2023.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the writ petition filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India is maintainable when an alternative statutory remedy of appeal is available to the petitioner against the assessment order passed under Section 147 read with Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Assessee's contention: The petitioner contended that there was no equal, efficacious, and expeditious remedy of appeal or revision available, necessitating the filing of the writ petition before the High Court. Revenue's contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions from the revenue regarding the maintainability of the writ petition. However, by implication, the revenue would likely rely on the existence of the statutory appeal mechanism.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148A(b),Section 147,Section 144B,Section 156,Section 246(1)(b)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Neutral Citation No. 2024:PHHC:012056-DB

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

(106)

CWP-24187-2023 Decided on : 30.01.2024

Rajkumar Hanuman Prasad Jangid ……Petitioner(s) Versus Income Tax Officer Ward-1, Hisar and others

……Respondent(s)

CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.S. SANDHAWALIA HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI

Present: Mr. Sumit Lalchandani, Advocate for the petitioner (s).

(Through Video Conferencing).

Ms. Gauri Neo Rampal Opal, Senior Standing Counsel for the respondents.

***** G.S. Sandhawalia, J. (Oral)

Challenge in the present writ petition filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India is to the notice dated 30.05.2022 (Annexure P-8) issued under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) for the Assessment Year 2013-2014, which has culminated into an assessment order passed under Section 147 read with Section 144B of the Act on 25.05.2023 (Annexure P-17). 2.

Vide the demand notice dated 25.05.2023 (Annexure P-18) issued under Section 156 of the Act, the right of presenting the appeal under Part A of Chapter XX of the Act has been duly given to the petitioner. In spite of that in paragraph No.9 of the writ petition, it has been averred that the petitioner has no equal efficacious and expeditious remedy of appeal or revision except to approach this Court. Section 246 (1) (b) provides that appeals can be filed before the Commissioner (Appeals) against an order of assessment, re- assessment or recomputation under Section 147 of the Act. NAVEEN NAGPAL 2024.02.02 10:12 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment Chandigarh

CWP-24187-2023

-2- 3.

In such circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that present writ petition is not maintainable. It is open to the petition to file an appropriate application for interim relief before the Appellate Authority in accordance with law. Considering the fact that the writ petition was filed on 26.06.2023 before this Court, it is also open to the petitioner to file an appropriate application seeking condonation of delay. We are sanguine that the Appellate Authority shall decide the application/appeal on merits, keeping in view the fact that the matter was pending before this Court. 4.

With the aforesaid observations, the present writ petition stands disposed of. (G.S. SANDHAWALIA) JUDGE

(LAPITA BANERJI) 30.01.2024

JUDGE Naveen

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes

Whether Reportable :

NAVEEN NAGPAL 2024.02.02 10:12 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment Chandigarh

More judgments on Section 148A(b)

All 524 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148A(b) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →