PREMVATI KANWAR vs. UNION OF INDIA

PDF · subscribers
WPT/191/2023HC ChhattisgarhCGHC01022627202325 July 2023Bench: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAKESH MOHAN PANDEY3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the order passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act were to be set aside. The reasoning was that the Assessing Officer had not taken into consideration the reply filed by the petitioner along with the valuation report issued by the registered valuer while passing the order under Section 148A(d). The Court directed the Assessing Officer to consider the reply and the valuation report strictly in accordance with law and thereafter pass an order afresh. The Court also noted that the valuation report could be sent to the Departmental Valuation Officer. The ratio decidendi is that an order passed under Section 148A(d) must reflect due consideration of all material placed before the AO by the assessee, including valuation reports, before proceeding to issue a notice under Section 148.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Premvati Kanwar, challenged an order dated March 26, 2023, passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and a notice dated March 26, 2023, issued under Section 148 of the Act. The Assessing Officer (AO) had decided to issue the notice under Section 148 after obtaining prior approval from the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, as per Section 151 of the Act. The petitioner argued that the AO failed to consider the reply and the valuation report submitted by a registered valuer when passing the order under Section 148A(d). The respondents opposed this contention. The High Court noted that the reply and valuation report had not been considered by the AO.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the order passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the subsequent notice under Section 148 of the Act are liable to be set aside due to the non-consideration of the petitioner's reply and valuation report by the Assessing Officer? Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the Assessing Officer failed to consider the reply filed along with the valuation report of a registered valuer while passing the order under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, both the order and the notice should be set aside, and the matter should be remitted back for a fresh consideration. The petitioner relied on the principle that all relevant material submitted by the assessee must be considered by the authority before passing an order. Revenue's Contention: The respondents opposed the contentions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148A,Section 148,Section 151

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR W.P.(T) No. 191 of 2023  Premvati Kanwar aged about 45 years wife of Shri Sitaram Kanwar, Resident of House No. 215, Ring Road Balco, Risdi Chowk, Rajgamar, Korba, (C.G.) PIN- 495683 ---- Petitioner Versus 1. Union of India Through Secretary Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, North Block, New Delhi – 110001, India 2. Income Tax Officer-1 Korba, Office of the Income Tax Officer of the Income Tax Officer ITO-1 Korba, Income Tax Office, Kosabadi, Niharika Road, Korba, District Korba, Chhattisgarh, 495677 3. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Raipur, Office of Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Raipur, Central Revenue Building Civil Lines, Raipur, Chhattisgarh- 492001, India ---- Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Siddharth Dubey, Advocate For Respondent No. 1 : Ms. Jyoti Singh and Mr. Sharad Mishra, Advocates appear on behalf of Mr. Ramakant Mishra, Deputy Solicitor General For Respondent No. 2 & 3/State : Mr. Ajay Kumrani, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Rakesh Mohan Pandey, Judge Order On Board 26.07.2023 1. The petitioner has challenged the Annexure- P1-C which is an order passed on 26.03.2023 under Section 148A (d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'I.T. Act') and Annexure P1-D which is a notice dated 26.03.2023 issued under Section 148 of the I.T. Act. 2. The Assessing Officer while passing the order under Section 148A (d) of the I.T. Act held as under:- “6. Considering the above-mentioned facts, it is decided

2 that case of the assessee is a fit case for issuance of notice u/s 148 of the I.T. Act for the assessment year under consideration. The order is passed u/s 148A(d) of the Act after the prior approval of Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Raipur as per the provision of section 151 of the Act within one month from the end of the month in which time to furnish a reply as per 148A(b) i.e. 03/03/2023 expired after consideration of reply under clause (c) of the section 148A.” 3. Notice under Section 148 of the I.T. Act was issued to the petitioner on 26.03.2023. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the reply which was filed alongwith valuation report of the registered valuer, have not been considered by the Assessing Officer while passing the order under Section 148A(d) of the I.T. Act. Therefore, the order passed under Section 148A (d) of the I.T. Act as well as notice issued under Section 148 of the I.T. Act are liable to be set aside and the matter may be remitted back to the authority concerned to consider the reply and valuation report and to pass the order afresh. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents would oppose the contention made by learned counsel for the petitioner. 6. Taking into consideration the fact that reply filed by the petitioner alongwith valuation report have not been taken into consideration while passing the order under Section 148A (d) of the I.T. Act by the Assessing Officer, therefore, at this stage it would be appropriate to set aside the order passed on 26.03.2023 under Section 148A(d) of the I.T. Act and the notice issued under Section 148 of I.T. Act with a

3 direction to the Assessing Officer to consider the reply and valuation report issued by the registered valuer strictly in accordance with law and thereafter to pass an order afresh. The valuation report can be sent to Departmental Valuation Officer. 7. Consequently, the petition stands disposed of. Sd/-

(Rakesh Mohan Pandey)

Judge vatti

More judgments on Section 148A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →