ANSHU SAHAI (HUF) vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
CW/6862/2024HC RajasthanRJHC02035653202422 July 2024Bench: MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA,ASHUTOSH KUMAR3 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court dismissed the writ petition, declining to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The court reasoned that a statutory alternative efficacious remedy of appeal was available to the petitioner to challenge the assessment order. The court noted that the petitioner had participated in the assessment proceedings after receiving notice under Section 153C on January 18, 2023, and only challenged the assessment order after it was passed. Regarding the opportunity of hearing, the court found that it was not a case of total absence of opportunity, but rather an allegation that a proper opportunity was not afforded, which could be examined by the appellate authority. The court granted liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal within 30 days, directing that the appeal be decided on its merits without being barred by limitation.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Anshu Sahai (HUF), filed a writ petition challenging an assessment order dated March 26, 2024. The petitioner contended that the initiation of proceedings under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was invalid as the section was deleted effective April 1, 2021. The petitioner also argued that a proper opportunity of hearing was not provided. The respondents, represented by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax and Assistant Commissioners of Income Tax, cited a previous High Court order in Smt. Rama Gupta Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax. They argued that the petitioner had submitted to the jurisdiction by not challenging the notice issued on January 18, 2023, and participating in the assessment proceedings, only raising objections after the assessment order was passed. The court noted that the issue of hearing opportunity was not a case of total absence but of adequacy.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the initiation of proceedings under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was bad in law, considering its deletion effective April 1, 2021? (Question of law) 2. Whether a proper opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner before passing the assessment order? (Question of mixed law and fact) Assessee's Contentions: The petitioner argued that the assessment proceedings initiated under Section 153C were invalid due to the section's deletion. Furthermore, the petitioner contended that they were not granted a proper opportunity of hearing. Revenue's Contentions: The revenue, referring to the High Court's order in Smt. Rama Gupta Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, argued that the petitioner had submitted to the jurisdiction by not challenging the notice under Section 153C when it was issued on January 18, 2023, and by participating in the assessment proceedings. The revenue submitted that the writ petition should not be entertained as an alternative statutory remedy of appeal exists, and the issue of hearing opportunity was not one of total absence.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 153C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

[2024:RJ-JP:30631-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6862/2024 Anshu Sahai (HUF), through Karta Sh. Siddharath Sahai R/o SP 15 Bhabha Marg Tilak Nagar Jaipur, 302004, Rajasthan. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, ACIT Central Circle- 2, Jaipur, having its address at Room No. 410, 4Th Floor Jeevan Nidhi -2, LIC Building Ambedkar Circle Jaipur, Rajasthan, 302005. 2. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4, Jaipur, having its address at New Central Revenue Building, Bhagwan Das Road, Jaipur, Rajasthan, 302005. 3. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, DCIT/ACIT, Central Circle-2, Jaipur, Having its Address at Room No. 410, 4Th Floor, Jeevan Nidhi-2, LIC Building, Ambedkar Circle, Jaipur, Rajasthan, 302005. ----Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. S.S. Hora Advocate. For Respondents : Mr. Siddharth Bapna Advocate with Mr. Sarvesh Jain Advocate, Ms. Kriti Kalawatia Advocate and Mr. Meyhul Mittal Advocate. HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR Order 22/07/2024 1. Heard. 2. This writ petition has been filed against assessment order dated 26.03.2024 on the submission that the very initiation of proceedings under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) was bad in law as the proceedings could not have been initiated under the scheme of (Uploaded on 29/07/2024 at 12:04:38 PM) (Downloaded on 30/10/2026 at 09:41:09 AM)

[2024:RJ-JP:30631-DB] (2 of 3) [CW-6862/2024] Section 153C of the Act as it stood prior to its deletion with effect from 01.04.2021. It is submitted that show cause notice was issued, reply was filed, but proper opportunity of hearing was not afforded to the petitioner. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents, referring to order dated 31.05.2024 passed by this Court in the case of Smt. Rama Gupta Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9309/2024), would submit that in cases where issuance of notice at the very inception was not challenged but the assessee submitted to the jurisdiction of the authority and sought to challenge only after the assessment order was passed, this Court has not exercised its discretion to entertain the petition and allowed the parties to exhaust statutory alternative remedy of appeal. 4. In the present case, on facts also, we find that notice under Section 153C of the Act was issued to the petitioner way back on 18.01.2023. The petitioner did not challenge the initiation of proceedings and submitted to the jurisdiction of the authorities and participated in the assessment proceedings. It is only when the assessment order is passed that the petitioner seeks to challenge the same by filing present writ petition. The issue with regard to opportunity of hearing can also be examined by the authorities concerned because it is not a case of total absence of opportunity of hearing and the allegation is that proper opportunity of hearing was not afforded. 5. In these circumstances, we are not inclined to exercise our discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of (Uploaded on 29/07/2024 at 12:04:38 PM) (Downloaded on 30/10/2026 at 09:41:09 AM)

[2024:RJ-JP:30631-DB] (3 of 3) [CW-6862/2024] India to entertain this writ petition because there exists statutory alternative efficacious remedy of appeal to challenge the assessment order. 6. Writ petition is dismissed, however, with liberty to the petitioner to take recourse to the alternative remedy of appeal available to her under the law. 7. Taking into consideration that this writ petition was filed before expiry of period of limitation for filing the appeal, it is directed that in case, the petitioner prefers an appeal within 30 days, the appeal shall be heard and decided by the Appellate Authority on its own merits without going into the issue of limitation. (ASHUTOSH KUMAR),J (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),CJ MANOJ NARWANI /21 Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) (Uploaded on 29/07/2024 at 12:04:38 PM) (Downloaded on 30/10/2026 at 09:41:10 AM)

More judgments on Section 153C

All 9,619 judgments and leading authorities on Section 153C →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →