IMAMUDDIN S/O MAJRUDDIN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
CW/9986/2022HC RajasthanRJHC02053270202219 July 2022Bench: MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA,SHUBHA MEHTA2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court declined to exercise its discretionary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The court noted that while the petitioner raised grounds challenging the assessment order, including the validity of the Section 148 notice, the petitioner had failed to challenge the notice when it was issued and subsequently allowed the limitation period for filing an appeal against the assessment order to expire. The court found that the petitioner had not availed the statutory remedy of appeal. Given the existence of a provision for condonation of delay in filing appeals, the court directed the petitioner to pursue that remedy by moving an appropriate application before the Appellate Authority. The writ petition was dismissed on the grounds of alternative remedy and the petitioner's failure to pursue available legal recourse in a timely manner.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Imamuddin, filed a writ petition challenging an assessment order passed under Section 147 read with Section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on March 21, 2022. The assessment proceedings were initiated by a notice under Section 148 of the Act, issued on March 31, 2021. The petitioner did not challenge the Section 148 notice when it was issued. Subsequently, after the assessment order was passed, the petitioner failed to file an appeal within the prescribed time limit, allowing the limitation period to expire. The petitioner then filed the present writ petition before the High Court.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court should exercise its discretionary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to entertain a challenge to an assessment order when the petitioner has alternative statutory remedies available, including the filing of an appeal with condonation of delay. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner urged several grounds challenging the assessment order, including that the notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, issued on March 31, 2021, was contrary to law. The petitioner's argument implicitly suggests that the assessment order, based on this notice, is also invalid. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions from the revenue. However, the court's reasoning implies that the revenue would likely rely on the procedural lapses of the petitioner.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 147,Section 144

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9986/2022 Imamuddin S/o Majruddin, R/o 66 Chamar Khidkiya, Karauli 322241, Rajasthan Presently Address At 66 Chamar Khi, H.N. 57, JMC, Karoli House, Eidgarh Kacchi Basti, Gali No. 1, Van Vihar Colony, Jaipur, Rajasthan. ----Petitioner Versus Income Tax Officer, Ward Karauli, Having Its Address At 62-65, Adarash Nagar, Near Masalpur Chungi Naka, Hindaun Road, Karauli. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ramanuj Sharma, Advocate HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SHUBHA MEHTA Order 19/07/2022 Heard. Though number of grounds are being urged before us by challenging the order of assessment, including a ground that notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 1961”) issued on 31.03.2021 itself was against the provisions of law, we are not inclined to exercise our discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in favour of the petitioner for the reason that even though notice under Section 148 of the Act of 1961 was issued on 31.03.2021, the petitioner did not choose to challenge the same and remained content with the same. Thereafter, when assessment order under Section 147 read with Section 144 of the (Uploaded on 30/07/2022 at 11:19:55 AM) (Downloaded on 30/10/2026 at 09:44:27 AM) (2 of 2) [CW-9986/2022] Act of 1961 was passed on 21.03.2022, he did not even prefer an appeal and allowed the limitation for filing appeal to expire and then he has woken up from deep slumber to file writ petition before this Court. Considering that there is a provision for condonation of delay in filing appeal, we leave the petitioner to seek remedy available to him under the law by moving appropriate application for condonation of delay in filing appeal before the Appellate Authority instead of invoking our discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. With the aforesaid liberty, the writ petition is dismissed. (SHUBHA MEHTA),J (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),J Karan/12 Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) (Uploaded on 30/07/2022 at 11:19:55 AM) (Downloaded on 30/10/2026 at 09:44:27 AM)

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →