ASHA KAHLON vs. PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/7724/2023HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01047497202309 May 2023Author: MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI,MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA2 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court allowed the writ petition. The Court noted that it was not disputed by the respondents that the impugned order dated 02.04.2022 was passed without considering the petitioner's reply filed on 29.03.2022, which contained correct clarification and was already on the income tax portal. Consequently, the Court set aside the order dated 02.04.2022 and the notices dated 02.04.2022 and 30.03.2023. However, liberty was granted to the respondents to initiate fresh proceedings against the petitioner after considering her reply, in accordance with law. The principle derived is that administrative actions, including tax orders, must consider all relevant material placed on record by the assessee.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Asha Kahlon, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh challenging an order dated 02.04.2022 and notices dated 02.04.2022 and 30.03.2023 issued by the respondents, the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax and others. The petitioner contended that her reply, filed on 29.03.2022 and available on the income tax portal, provided correct clarification. However, the impugned order stated that the assessee was required to furnish a reply. The respondents did not dispute that the impugned order was passed without considering the petitioner's reply.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the impugned order dated 02.04.2022 and notices dated 02.04.2022 and 30.03.2023 are liable to be quashed on the ground that they were passed without considering the reply filed by the petitioner on 29.03.2022, which was already on the income tax portal? Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that her reply dated 29.03.2022, which was already uploaded on the income tax portal, contained the correct clarification. The impugned order was passed without considering this reply, despite it being available. Revenue's Contention: The learned counsel for the respondents did not dispute the fact that the impugned order was passed without considering the petitioner's reply.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

2023:PHHC:068016-DB

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CWP-7724-2023

Date of Decision:-09.05.2023

Asha Kahlon

….Petitioner

Vs.

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax and ors.

….Respondents

CORAM:- HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI

HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA

Present:- Mr. Alok Mittal, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Saurabh Kapoor, Sr. Standing counsel For the respondents.

Ritu Bahri, J. (Oral)

The present petition is for quashing order dated 02.04.2022 (P-7), notice dated 02.04.2022 and 30.03.2023 (P-8 and P-10 respectively) issued by the respondents.

At the very outset, it is not disputed by learned counsel for the respondents that the impugned order has been passed without considering the reply filed by the petitioner on 29.03.2022 (P-5) whereby the petitioner has given correct clarification in the reply. This reply was already on the income tax portal. In the impugned order, it has been stated that the assessee was required to furnish reply.

Keeping in view the fact that the reply of the petitioner was already on income tax portal, the present petition is allowed and order dated 02.04.2022 (P-7), notice dated 02.04.2022 and 30.03.2023 (P-8 and P-10 respectively) are set aside, However, a liberty is granted to the GAURAV ARORA 2023.05.15 12:17 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/document P&H HC, Chandigarh

2023:PHHC:068016-DB

respondent to initiate fresh proceedings against the petitioner after considering the reply filed by the petitioner, in accordance with law.

(RITU BAHRI)

JUDGE

(MANISHA BATRA)

JUDGE

09.05.

2023 G Arora

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable

: Yes/No

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →