SANDHYA PATNI (SENIOR CITIZEN) W/O SHRI SUBHASH CHAND PATNI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
CW/3664/2022HC RajasthanRJHC02017721202204 July 2024Author: AVNEESH JHINGAN,ASHUTOSH KUMAR2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The Tribunal held that the issues raised were factual and involved disputed questions. Considering these factual complexities, the court found no grounds for interference under its writ jurisdiction. The petitioner was therefore relegated to the statutory remedy of appeal. The Tribunal directed that if an appeal is filed along with a condonation of delay application, the appellate authority should consider the pendency of the writ petition. Furthermore, the appellate authority was urged to decide the appeal expeditiously, preferably within six months, given that the issue pertains to assessment year 2016-17. No specific issue was left undecided; the court declined to decide on merits due to the nature of the dispute.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Sandhya Patni, filed a writ petition challenging a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. While the petition was pending, an assessment order under Section 148 was passed. The writ petition was subsequently amended to challenge this assessment order. The core of the dispute involves factual questions regarding whether the scripts dealt with by the petitioner were of AMML or GBFL and EML. The petitioner's reply during assessment proceedings stated no dealings with GBFL and EML, but the writ petition argued that AMML was later renamed GBFL and EML. The assessment year in question is 2016-17.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court should entertain a writ petition involving disputed factual questions concerning the nature of script dealings (AMML vs. GBFL and EML) when the petitioner's submissions in assessment proceedings and the writ petition appear contradictory. This issue turns on the principles governing writ jurisdiction and the availability of alternative remedies. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the name of AMML was subsequently changed to GBFL and EML, implying a factual dispute that might warrant writ intervention. Revenue's Contention: The revenue implicitly argued, by not conceding, that the factual disputes were not suitable for writ jurisdiction and that the petitioner had an alternative remedy of appeal. The judgment does not record specific arguments from the revenue beyond the implication of their stance.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
[2024:RJ-JP:27961-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3664/2022 Sandhya Patni (Senior Citizen) W/o Shri Subhash Chand Patni, Resident Of 101, A-20, Samridhi Enclave, Panchsheel Colony, Behind Old Octroi Post, Ajmer Road, Jaipur 302019. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1 (2), Jaipur Having Its Address At New Central Revenue Building, Bhagwan Dass Road, Jaipur 302005 2. Additional / Joint / Deputy / Assistant Commissioner/ Income Tax Officer, National Faceless Assessment Centre, North Block, New Delhi 110001. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Siddharth Ranka, Adv. with Ms. Shweta Bapna, Adv. & Mr. Rohan Chatter, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anuroop Singhi, Adv. with Mr. N.S. Bhati, Adv. & Mr. Aditya Khandelwal, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR

Order 04/07/2024

1.

The petition was filed challenging the issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (For short ‘the Act’). No interim protection was granted and during pendency of the petition, order under Section 148 of the Act was passed. The writ petition was amended and the assessment order was challenged.

2.

The issues raised are factual. There are disputed questions as to whether the script dealt with by the petitioner were of AMML

[2024:RJ-JP:27961-DB] (2 of 2) [CW-3664/2022] or GBFL and EML. It would be pertinent to note that in the assessment proceedings reply was filed that petitioner never dealt with script in the names of GBFL and EML. In the writ petition, it is argued that the name of AMML was subsequently changed to GBFL and EML.

3.

Considering the factual issues involved, no case is made out for interference in the writ jurisdiction.

4.

The petition is dismissed relegating the petitioner to the remedy of appeal.

5.

In the eventuality of the petitioner filing an appeal along with application for condonation of delay, the Appellate Authority shall take into account the pendency of writ petition.

6.

Further, the appellate authority considering that the issue is with regard to assessment year 2016-17 shall make a sincere endeavour to decide the appeal expeditiously, preferably within six months from the filing of the appeal. (ASHUTOSH KUMAR),J (AVNEESH JHINGAN),J Mohita/Riya-159

More judgments on Section 148

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →