DR. ANITA CHOUDHARY W/O SHRI VIJAY PRAKASH KHICHAR vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
CW/4922/2022HC RajasthanRJHC02024644202227 March 2025Author: AVNEESH JHINGAN,MANEESH SHARMA2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the notice dated 03.02.2022 was served upon the petitioner on 08.02.2022, with a request for appearance on 09.02.2022. This timeline did not provide the petitioner with reasonable time to respond. Consequently, the impugned order dated 17.02.2022, which transferred the assessment proceedings, was set aside. The matter was remitted back to the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Respondent No.1) to decide the issue in accordance with the law, after providing a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner. The petitioner was directed to appear before Respondent No.1 on 15.04.2025 at 11:00 AM to avoid further delay.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Dr. Anita Choudhary, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 17.02.2022 passed under Section 127 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. This order transferred her assessment proceedings from Sikar to Jaipur. The petitioner's primary grievance was that the transfer order was passed without affording her a reasonable opportunity to respond. She contended that she received the notice on 08.02.2022 and sought an adjournment on 09.02.2022, but the impugned order was passed without considering this request. The respondents disputed the receipt of the adjournment request.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the order transferring assessment proceedings under Section 127 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was passed without providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity to respond, thereby violating principles of natural justice? Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the notice for transfer of proceedings was received late on 08.02.2022, and her request for adjournment made on 09.02.2022 was not considered before the impugned order dated 17.02.2022 was passed. This denied her a reasonable opportunity to present her case. Revenue's Contention: The respondents disputed the petitioner's claim regarding the receipt of the request for adjournment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 127

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
[2025:RJ-JP:14081-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4922/2022 Dr. Anita Choudhary W/o Shri Vijay Prakash Khichar, Aged About 52 Years, R/o Khichar Hospital, Nawalgarh Road, Sikar-332001, Rajasthan, India. ----Petitioner Versus 1. The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Jaipur-2, New Central Revenue Building, Bhagwan Das Road, Jaipur- 302005, Rajasthan. 2. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, (Acit), Central Circle-3, Room No. 418, 4Th Floor, Jeevan Nidhi-2, Lic Building, Ambedkar Circle, Jaipur-302005, Rajasthan. 3. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Todi Nagar, Sanwali Road, Sikar-332001, Rajasthan. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Tarak Ahuja through VC for Mr. Mahendra Gargieya For Respondent(s) : Mr. Siddharth Bapna with Mr. Meyhul Miittal HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA

Order 27/03/2025

1.

This petition is filed assailing the order dated 17.02.2022 passed under Section 127 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’).

2.

The limited grievance raised in this petition is that the order transferring the assessment proceedings from Sikar to Jaipur was passed without providing reasonable opportunity.

3.

As per the petitioner, notice dated 03.02.2022 was received in the evening of 08.02.2022 and on 09.02.2022, time was sought

[2025:RJ-JP:14081-DB] (2 of 2) [CW-4922/2022] for responding to the notice but impugned order dated 17.02.2022 was passed without dealing with the request for adjournment.

4.

Learned counsel for the respondents is disputing the receipt of the request for adjournment.

5.

Without going into the factual aspect as to whether request for adjournment was received by the department or not, considering that notice was served upon petitioner on 08.02.2022 for appearance on 09.02.2022, thereby denying the reasonable time to respond. The impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted back to respondent No.1 to decide the issue in accordance with law.

6.

In order to avoid further delay and complication, let the petitioner personally or through representative appear in the office of respondent No.1 on 15.04.2025 at 11:00 AM.

7.

The writ petition is allowed. (MANEESH SHARMA),J (AVNEESH JHINGAN),J Simple Kumawat /49

More judgments on Section 127

All 1,067 judgments and leading authorities on Section 127 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →