DILIP RAJ SINGHVI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
CW/13439/2024HC RajasthanRJHC01061702202416 August 2024Author: MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA,KULDEEP MATHUR2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court dismissed the writ petition on the grounds of delay and laches. The Court noted that the impugned order under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act was passed on 06.04.2023, and a notice of reassessment was simultaneously issued. The petitioner did not challenge this order for a considerable period and approached the Court only when reassessment proceedings were initiated under Section 142(1). The Court found no justification for the delay in challenging the order. While not deciding the merits of the grounds raised by the petitioner, the Court held that these issues could be raised before the assessing authority during the reassessment proceedings, who would consider them before passing the final order. The Court declined to exercise its discretionary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution due to the delay.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Dilip Raj Singhvi, challenged an order dated 06.04.2023 passed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(A), Jodhpur, under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. This order initiated reassessment proceedings. The petitioner argued that the reopening was bad in law and that similar petitions for previous assessment years were pending. The respondent, Income Tax Officer, appeared through counsel. The impugned order under Section 148A(d) was passed on 06.04.2023, and a notice of reassessment was simultaneously issued. The petitioner approached the High Court only when reassessment proceedings were initiated by issuing a notice under Section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, after a considerable delay.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the reopening of assessment by the respondent under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is bad in law? Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the reopening of assessment was bad in law. He also mentioned that petitions concerning previous assessment years were pending consideration. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contention from the revenue regarding the merits of the reopening. However, the revenue appeared through counsel. The High Court dismissed the petition on the ground of delay and laches, noting that the petitioner had not challenged the order dated 06.04.2023 for a reasonably long period.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148A,Section 148A(d),Section 142(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
[2024:RJ-JD:33962-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13439/2024 Dilip Raj Singhvi S/o Shri Bachchraj Ji Singhvi, Aged About 60 Years, R/o D-160, Shastri Nagar, Jodhpur, Rajasthan. Pan No. Ainps1239A ----Petitioner Versus Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(A), Jodhpur, Rajasthan. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Nihar Jain For Respondent(s) : Mr. K.K. Bissa HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR

Order 16/08/2024

1.

Mr. K.K. Bissa, learned counsel for the respondent appears on advance copy.

2.

Though learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously urged with all vehemence at his command that the reopening of assessment vide impugned order dated 06.04.2023 passed in purported exercise of power under Section 148 A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is bad in law and in respect of reassessment/reopening of the previous assessment years, petitions have been filed and/are pending consideration, we are of the view that this petition is liable to be dismissed only on the ground of delay and laches.

3.

The writ petition contains not even a whisper as to why the petitioner could not earlier challenge the order dated 06.04.2023, except that, he had already approached the Court in respect of previous assessment years. (Uploaded on 17/08/2024 at 12:08:19 PM) (Downloaded on 28/10/2026 at 12:01:22 AM)

[2024:RJ-JD:33962-DB] (2 of 2) [CW-13439/2024]

4.

The order reopening assessment was passed by the respondents in exercise of the power under Section 148A of the Income Tax Act. After giving notice to the petitioner and obtaining his reply, impugned order was passed as back as on 06.04.2023. We are at a loss as to what prevented the petitioner from challenging this order. Having not challenged this order for a reasonably long period, the order attained finality.

5.

It is quite apparent that while passing order under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act on 06.04.2023, notice of reassessment was also simultaneously issued. The petitioner remained indolent. It is only when the reassessment proceedings were initiated by issuing notice under Section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, the petitioner has approached this Court.

6.

Irrespective of the merits of the case, taking into consideration that the present is not a case where additional tax liability is imposed and only reassessment proceedings have been initiated, on account of delay alone, we are not inclined to exercise our discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to entertain challenge to validity of the order dated 06.04.2023. The issues and grounds, which have been raised in this petition, shall be open to be raised at the stage of reassessment before the assessing authority, who shall consider the same before passing the order of reassessment.

7.

The present petition stands dismissed. (KULDEEP MATHUR),J (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),CJ 7-pooja/- Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) (Uploaded on 17/08/2024 at 12:08:19 PM) (Downloaded on 28/10/2026 at 12:01:22 AM)

More judgments on Section 148A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →