PRALHAD DNYANDEV KARALE vs. THE UNION OF INDIA THROUGH ITS INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
WP/3333/2024HC BombayHCBM03010263202401 April 2024Author: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAVINDRA V. GHUGE,HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE R. M. JOSHI3 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench, disposed of the Writ Petition. The Court noted the Petitioner's belated approach, filing the petition approximately two years after the impugned order and after a final order under Section 147 read with Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, had been passed. The Court found support in the Delhi High Court's decision in Indian National Congress Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central-19 and Anr., which held that there was no justification to interdict assessment proceedings at a belated stage. The Court did not comment on the Petitioner's request to raise all grounds in the appeal, stating that Income Tax Authorities are duty-bound to deal with all contentions raised in the appeal. Therefore, the petition was not decided on merits but was disposed of on procedural grounds.

What were the facts?

The Petitioner, Pralhad Dnyandev Karale, filed a Writ Petition before the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench, on March 7, 2024, challenging an order passed on March 24, 2022. The petition was filed approximately two years after the impugned order. The Revenue, represented by the Union of India through its Income Tax Officer, submitted that a final order under Section 147 read with Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, had already been passed on March 28, 2024. The Court noted that the Petitioner had approached it belatedly.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Writ Petition filed by the Petitioner is maintainable at such a belated stage, considering the delay of approximately two years in filing the petition and the subsequent passing of a final order under Section 147 read with Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961? (Question of law and fact, concerning the procedural conduct of the Petitioner). Assessee's Contention: The Petitioner sought liberty to raise all grounds in the forthcoming appeal proceedings under Section 148 of the Act. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue argued that a final order under Section 147 read with Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, had already been passed on March 28, 2024. The Revenue also relied on the Delhi High Court's decision in Indian National Congress Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central-19 and Anr., which dismissed writ petitions filed at the fag end of assessment proceedings. The Revenue further relied on judgments from the Calcutta High Court and the Supreme Court of India in Commissioner of Income Tax and Others Vs. Chhabil Dass Agarwal.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Heard together (4 matters)

W.P. (C) 4264 of 2024
W.P.(C) 3957/2023
W.P. (C) 3797/2023
W.P.(C) 3671/2023

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 3333 OF 2024 Pralhad Dnyandev Karale VERSUS The Union Of India Through Its Income Tax Officer Mr. V. S. Undre, Advocate for the Petitioner Mr. Alok Sharma, Advocate for the Respondent CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE AND R. M. JOSHI, JJ. DATE : 1st April, 2024 PER COURT :-

1.

The impugned order is passed on 24th March, 2022 and this Petition has been filed on 7th March, 2024, which is practically after two years. The learned Advocate for the Department submits that a final order under Section 147 read with Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 has already been passed on 28th March, 2024. 2. Apparently, the Petitioner has filed this Petition belatedly. In similar circumstances, the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court has delivered an order dated 22nd March, 2024 in the matter of Indian National Congress Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central-19 and Anr. in W.P. (C) 4264 of 2024 & CM Nos. 17433/2024 & 17435/2024 and other connected matters. For the sake of brevity, paragraph 35 and 36 are reproduced as under: 32.wp3333.24.odt 1 of 3 2024:BHC-AUG:7381-DB

“35. The writ petitioner has thus chosen to approach this Court only a few days before the time for completion of assessment would expire and at the proverbial fag end of the proceedings. We consequently find no justification to interdict the assessment proceedings at this belated stage by invoking our jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. However and whether the asserted delay in commencement of proceedings would be fatal to the assessment itself is a question that we leave open to be urged at an appropriate juncture.

36.

Accordingly and subject to the aforesaid observations, we dismiss these writ petitions. All pending applications shall stand disposed of.”

3.

The learned Advocate for the Petitioner places reliance on the following judgments: (i) Commissioner of Income Tax- Circle 22(2) Delhi and Anr in W.P.(C) 3957/2023, dated 28.03.2023 (Delhi High Commissioner of Income Tax in W.P. (C) 3797/2023, New Delhi and Anr. in W.P.(C) 3671/2023 (Delhi High Court) (iv) Hosdurg Beedi Workers Industrial Service Type Co- Vs. Union of Iindia and Others, WPO 2006 of 2022 decided on 20-05- 2022 and of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Commissioner of 3 of 3

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →