M/S MEENA GAS AGENCY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
CW/9816/2019HC RajasthanRJHC02049908201930 April 2024Bench: AVNEESH JHINGAN,BHUWAN GOYAL1 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court disposed of the writ petition with a specific direction. The respondent authority (Income Tax Officer) was directed to consider the reply filed by the petitioner while proceeding in pursuance to the notice dated 28.05.2019. The Court clarified that the petitioner would be at liberty to avail further remedies in accordance with law if they remained aggrieved by the order passed pursuant to the Section 142(1) notice. The principle established is that statutory notices requiring a response necessitate the consideration of that response by the issuing authority before finalizing any decision. The judgment did not decide on the merits of the assessment itself, only on the procedural aspect of considering the petitioner's submission.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, M/s Meena Gas Agency, through its proprietor Ashok Kumar Meena, filed a writ petition before the Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench. The petition's grievance was that the Income Tax Officer (ITO), Ward, Behror, had not considered the petitioner's reply filed in response to a notice dated 28.05.2019 issued under Section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, before passing an order. The assessment year(s) are not specified in the judgment. The procedural history involves the issuance of the Section 142(1) notice and the petitioner's subsequent reply, which the petitioner claims was not considered.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the respondent authority (Income Tax Officer) is obligated to consider the reply filed by the petitioner in response to a notice issued under Section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, before passing an order? (Question of law and fact, concerning Section 142(1) of the Act). Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that their reply, submitted in response to the Section 142(1) notice, should be considered by the respondent before any order is passed. The petitioner's primary grievance is the alleged non-consideration of their reply. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondent revenue.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 142(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

[2024:RJ-JP:20103-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9816/2019 M/s Meena Gas Agency, Kotputli Through Its Proprietor Ashok Kumar Meena Son Of Shri Haripal Meena, Aged About 53 Years, Behind Police Station, Kotputli, District-Jaipur (Raj.). ----Petitioner Versus Income Tax Officer, Wd, Behror, District-Alwar (Raj.). ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Ankit Kumar For Respondent(s) : Mr.Anuroop Singhi, Mr.N.S.Bhati & Mr.Aditya Khandelwal HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHUWAN GOYAL Order 30/04/2024 1. The short grievance raised in this petition is that before passing the order in pursuance to the notice dated 28.05.2019 issued under Section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’), reply filed by the petitioner should be considered. 2. The petition is disposed of with direction that while proceeding in pursuance to the notice dated 28.05.2019, the respondent shall consider the reply filed by the petitioner. 3. Needless to say that the petitioner shall be at liberty to avail remedies in accordance with law, if aggrieved of the order passed in pursuance to the notice dated 28.05.2019. (BHUWAN GOYAL),J (AVNEESH JHINGAN),J Monika/20

More judgments on Section 142(1)

All 17,244 judgments and leading authorities on Section 142(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →