VIKRAM BHATIA vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND ANOTHER

PDF · subscribers
CWP/9697/2023HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01058075202311 May 2023Bench: MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI,MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that since the revenue conceded that the petitioner's reply/objections dated 24.03.2022 were not considered while passing the impugned order dated 31.03.2022, there was no necessity to seek a reply from the respondents. The Court found merit in the petitioner's grievance regarding the non-consideration of their submissions. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 31.03.2022 and the notice dated 02.04.2022 were set aside. The matter was remanded to the Income Tax Officer, Ward 1 (1), Amritsar, to pass a fresh order after duly considering the petitioner's reply dated 24.03.2022, in accordance with the law. No specific amount in dispute was recorded.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Vikram Bhatia, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh seeking to quash an order dated 31.03.2022 and a notice dated 02.04.2022. The respondents are the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Amritsar-1 and another. The learned State counsel, on instructions, conceded that the petitioner's reply/objections dated 24.03.2022 were not considered while passing the impugned order dated 31.03.2022. Consequently, the High Court found no need to seek a reply from the respondents.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the impugned order dated 31.03.2022 and notice dated 02.04.2022 are liable to be quashed on the ground that the petitioner's reply/objections dated 24.03.2022 were not considered by the Income Tax Officer. (Question of law and fact) Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the impugned order and notice should be quashed because their objections filed on 24.03.2022 were not considered by the assessing authority. Revenue's Contention: The revenue, through the learned State counsel, conceded that the petitioner's reply dated 24.03.2022 had not been considered while passing the impugned order dated 31.03.2022.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CWP No.9697 of 2023 (O&M) 2023:PHHC:068096-DB -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CWP No.9697 of 2023 (O&M)

Date of decision: 11.05.2023 Vikram Bhatia .....Petitioner Versus Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Amritsar-1 and another ....Respondents CORAM:HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present: Mr. Alok Mittal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Saurabh Kapoor, Senior Standing Counsel, for the respondents. *** Ritu Bahri, J. Petitioner is seeking quashing of the impugned order dated 31.03.2022 (Annexure P-5) and notice dated 02.04.2022 (Annexure P-6). Learned State counsel, on instructions, informs that while passing the impugned order dated 31.03.2022 (Annexure P-5), reply/objections dated 24.03.2022 (Annexure P-3) filed by the petitioner had not been considered. In view of the said fact, this Court is of the view that there is no need to get reply from the respondents. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 31.03.2022 (Annexure P- 5) and notice dated 02.04.2022 (Annexure P-6) are set aside and the matter is remanded to the Income Tax Officer, Ward 1 (1), Amritsar-respondent AJAY PRASHER 2023.05.16 09:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP No.9697 of 2023 (O&M) 2023:PHHC:068096-DB -2- No.2 to pass a fresh order after considering the reply dated 24.03.2022 (Annexure P-3) of the petitioner, in accordance with law. (RITU BAHRI)

JUDGE

(MANISHA BATRA) 11.05.2023 JUDGE ajp Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No AJAY PRASHER 2023.05.16 09:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →