Agrawal Petrolium Co. vs. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax 1

PDF · subscribers
WP/11047/2022HC Madhya Pradesh30 June 2022Bench: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL2 pages
For Petitioner: Sapan Usrethe
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the impugned order dated March 27, 2022, passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was vitiated due to the procedural impropriety of not considering the petitioner's reply filed on March 15, 2022. The respondents themselves conceded this fact. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned order. Liberty was reserved to the department to pass a fresh order in accordance with law after considering the petitioner's reply. The consequential notice dated March 29, 2022, was also set aside with the same liberty. The Court explicitly stated that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. The writ petition was allowed and disposed of.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Agrawal Petroleum Co., received a notice under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act. The petitioner filed a reply on March 15, 2022. The petitioner's grievance is that this reply was not considered by the respondent authorities while passing the order under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act. The respondents, through preliminary submissions, conceded that the petitioner's reply had indeed escaped their notice when passing the order under Section 148A(d). The impugned order was dated March 27, 2022, and a consequential notice was dated March 29, 2022.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the order passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is vitiated due to the non-consideration of the petitioner's reply filed on March 15, 2022, thereby raising a question of procedural impropriety. Assessee's Contention: The primary contention of the petitioner is that the respondent authorities failed to consider their reply filed in response to the notice under Section 148A(b), which is a procedural lapse. Revenue's Contention: The respondents, through their preliminary submissions, admitted that the petitioner's reply had escaped their notice while passing the order under Section 148A(d). They agreed that the impugned order should be set aside due to this procedural impropriety and sought liberty to pass a fresh order after considering the reply.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148A(b),Section 148A(d)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL & HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRAKASH CHANDRA GUPTA ON THE 30th OF JUNE, 2022 WRIT PETITION No. 11047 of 2022 Between:- AGRAWAL PETROLIUM CO. THROUGH ITS PARTNER SMT. BHAVANA AGRAWAL D/O SHRI JAGDISH PRASAD AGRAWAL AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS PLOT NO.9 NAPIER TOWN JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH) -482002 OCCUPATION BUSINESS .....PETITIONER (BY SHRI SAPAN USRETHE, ADVOCATE ) AND 1. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 THROUGH CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING NAPIER TOWN JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH) 2. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(1) AAYAKAR BHAWAN, NAPIER TOWN JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH) .....RESPONDENTS (BY SHRI SANJAY LAL, ADVOCATE ) This petition coming on for hearing this day, JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL passed the following: ORDER With the consent finally heard. The main grievance put forth is that when petitioner received a notice under Section 148A(b) of Income Tax Act, the petitioner filed a reply on 15.03.2022 but the same was not considered by the respondent. Learned counsel for the parties by placing reliance on para-3 and 6 of the 1 Digitally signed by VAISHALI AGRAWAL Date: 2022.07.01 16:36:36 IST SAN Signature Not Verified (SUJOY PAUL) JUDGE (PRAKASH CHANDRA GUPTA) Preliminary submissions filed on behalf of respondents jointly urged that indisputably petitioner's reply escaped notice of the respondents while passing order under Section 148A(d) of Income Tax Act, 1961. It is agreed that impugned order dated 27.03.2022 (Annexure P/10) may be set side because of aforesaid procedural impropriety of not considering the reply and liberty may be reserved to the department to pass a fresh order in accordance with law after considering the reply. In view of aforesaid stand of parties, the impugned order dated 27.03.2022 is set aside. Liberty is reserved to pass a fresh order in accordance with law after considering the reply. The consequential notice dated 29.03.2022 (Annexure P/11) is also set aside by reserving aforesaid liberty. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition stands allowed and disposed off. vai

JUDGE 2 Digitally signed by VAISHALI AGRAWAL Date: 2022.07.01 16:36:36 IST SAN Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by VAISHALI AGRAWAL Date: 2022.07.01 16:36:36 IST SAN Signature Not Verified

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 →