MUKESH MITTAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1 KAITHAL AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/8913/2022HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01043530202203 February 2025Author: MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI,MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA2 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court noted that the revenue had pointed out the availability of a statutory remedy of appeal under Section 246A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner's counsel, after arguing the matter, sought permission to withdraw the petition to enable the petitioner to prefer an appeal under Section 246A. The Senior Standing Counsel for the respondents stated that any such appeal filed by the petitioner would be taken cognizance of and dealt with in accordance with law expeditiously. Consequently, in light of the submissions made by both parties and the availability of the statutory remedy, the petition was disposed of as withdrawn. The court did not decide on the merits of the original challenge.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Mukesh Mittal, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh challenging an order passed under Section 147 read with Section 144 and Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, a notice of demand under Section 156, and a notice under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, all dated March 30, 2022, for the assessment year 2015-16. These were passed by the Income-Tax Officer, Ward-I, Kaithal. The revenue, through its Senior Standing Counsel, pointed out that the petitioner had a statutory remedy of appeal under Section 246A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against the impugned orders and therefore should have filed an appeal first. The petitioner's counsel then sought permission to withdraw the petition to pursue the statutory appeal.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the petitioner has an alternative statutory remedy available against the impugned order and notices, and if so, whether the writ petition is maintainable? (Question of law and procedure, turning on Section 246A of the Income Tax Act, 1961). Assessee's contention: The petitioner sought to challenge the orders and notices through a writ petition. Revenue's contention: The revenue argued that the petitioner has a statutory remedy of appeal under Section 246A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against the impugned order and therefore ought to have filed an appeal in the first instance, implying the writ petition was not maintainable.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144,Section 144B,Section 156,Section 274,Section 271(1)(c),Section 246A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CWP-8913-2022(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-8913-2022(O&M) Date of decision: 03.02.2025 Mukesh Mittal … Petitioner Versus Income-Tax Officer Ward-I, Kaithal and others … Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. S. Vasudevan, Adocate, Mr. Karanjot, and Mr. Tanmay Bhatnagar, Advocates, for the petitioner. Ms. Gauri Neo Rampal, Sr. Standing Counsel, for the respondents. (Through Hybrid Mode) *** ARUN PALLI, J. (Oral) The petitioner (Mukesh Mittal) has prayed for the following substantive relief: “A writ of certiorari or a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other writ/order/direction thereof for quashing/setting aside the impugned order under Section 147 read with Section 144 and Section 144B of the Act (Annexure P-1), dated 30.03.2022 the notice of demand under Section 156 of the Act (Annexure P-1) and the notice under Section 274 read with 271(1)(c) of the Act (Annexure P2) all dated 30.03.2022 for the assessment year 2015-16 passed by the respondent No.2.” With reference to the averments set out in paragraph 24 of the petition, learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents submits that against the order(s) being assailed, the petitioner has a statutory RAJAN KUMAR 2025.02.04 10:32 I am approving this document

CWP-8913-2022(O&M) 2 remedy by way of appeal under Section 246A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and therefore, he ought to have filed an appeal in the first instance.

Having argued the matter at some length, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he be permitted to withdraw the petition so as to enable the petitioner to prefer an appeal in terms of Section 246-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. In response, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondents submits that, in the event, any such appeal is filed by the petitioner, the same shall be taken cognizance and dealt with in accordance with law, and the necessary orders shall be passed as expeditiously as possible. In the wake of the position sketched out above, as also the statements made by learned counsel for the parties, the petition is accordingly disposed of. ( Arun Palli )

Judge 03.02.2025 Rajan ( Sudeepti Sharma ) Judge Whether speaking / reasoned: YES/NO Whether Reportable: YES/NO RAJAN KUMAR 2025.02.04 10:32 I am approving this document

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →