PRAKASH KUMAR CHANDNANI SON OF SHRI CHANDER KUMAR CHANDANI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

[2024:RJ-JP:42169-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7510/2023 Prakash Kumar Chandnani Son Of Shri Chander Kumar Chandani, Resident 13, New Joshi Colony Brahmpuri, Jaipur ----Petitioner Versus Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle (International Taxation), Jaipur Having Its Address At 4Th Floor, Jeevan Nidhi- 2, Lic Building, Ambedkar Circle, Jaipur ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Siddharth Ranka with Mr. Satvika Jha For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shantanu Sharma with Mr. Anurag Mathur HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR Order 07/10/2024 1. Heard. 2. With the consent of the parties, this petition is heard finally. 3. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed correctness, legality and validity of order dated 05.04.2023 passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act of 1961’) by respondent, followed by notice of even date issued under Section 148 of the Act of 1961 pertaining to assessment year 2016-17. 4. Amongst various grounds, one of the grounds which has been taken by the petitioner is that after notice under Section 148A(b) was served on the petitioner on 24.02.2023, he submitted a detailed reply for appropriate consideration on (Uploaded on 09/10/2024 at 04:54:17 PM) (Downloaded on 30/10/2026 at 09:41:02 AM)

[2024:RJ-JP:42169-DB] (2 of 3) [CW-7510/2023] 17.03.2023 which was very much on records and files of the case of the petitioner but yet the impugned order passed under Section 148A(d) of the Act of 1961 incorrectly mentions that no reply was filed, which means that the respondent completely ignored to take into consideration the reply of the petitioner before arriving at a conclusion that any material information in possession of the respondent suggests that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. It is, therefore, contended that the impugned order is liable to be set aside only on this ground. 5. In reply, learned counsel for the respondent would fairly admit that the reply was, in fact, filed by the petitioner on 17.03.2023 on the Income Tax Portal. He however, would submit that there were certain technical glitches due to which even though reply was received on record in the electronic form but the same could not be attached with the records and therefore, on such basis, the officer dealing with the matter recorded that there was no reply. 6. In view of admission of fact which has been made by learned counsel for the respondent which is clearly reflected in the reply on affidavit, two things are clear. Firstly, that in response to show cause notice issued to the petitioner, he initially submitted a detailed reply on 17.03.2023 which was duly uploaded on the Portal of the Income Tax Department. The second admitted fact which vitiates the decision making process and warrants our interference is that the reply filed by petitioner was not taken into consideration. It is clear from the recital of the impugned order itself wherein, it has been stated that no reply has been filed. Apparently, reply filed by the (Uploaded on 09/10/2024 at 04:54:17 PM) (Downloaded on 30/10/2026 at 09:41:02 AM)

[2024:RJ-JP:42169-DB] (3 of 3) [CW-7510/2023] petitioner escaped notice and consideration of the concerned authority. That in our opinion, without anything more, is sufficient to vitiate the entire decision making process warranting interference. Therefore, the order impugned is liable to be set aside. 7. We, accordingly, do so. Impugned order dated 05.04.2023 passed under Section 148A(d) of the Act of 1961 as also notice of even date issued under section 148A(b) of the Act of 1961 are held unsustainable in law and set aside. This leaves the Department to consider the reply filed by the petitioner on 17.03.2023 and take appropriate decision there on in accordance with the law. Before parting with the case, we must hasten to add here that we have not commented upon the merits of the case. 8. The petition is, accordingly, allowed. (ASHUTOSH KUMAR),J (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),CJ Naval Gandhi-RAHUL/129 Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) (Uploaded on 09/10/2024 at 04:54:17 PM) (Downloaded on 30/10/2026 at 09:41:02 AM)