SAGARIKA GHOSH -LEGAL HEIR OF LATE SH. DIPANKAR MOHAN GHOSH- THROUGH HER SPA HOLDER UPENDRA NATH MA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(3)(1), INTL. TAXN. DELHI AND ANR

PDF · subscribers
W.P.(C)/7277/2023HC DelhiDLHC01020739202326 May 2023Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court, acknowledging the peculiar facts and the pendency of appeals before the ITAT concerning the Section 263 orders, disposed of the writ petition with specific directions. The court directed the petitioner to file an appeal with the CIT(A) within four weeks of receiving the judgment copy. Crucially, the revenue was directed not to take any coercive measures against the petitioner until a decision was rendered by the ITAT in the pending appeals, and for three weeks thereafter. This approach aimed to provide a procedural pathway for the petitioner while respecting the ongoing appellate process before the ITAT. The court implicitly recognized the potential impact of the ITAT's decision on the assessment orders and allowed for an appeal to the CIT(A) as a consequential step. No specific finding was made on the merits of the assessment orders or the valuation report, as the petition was disposed of on procedural grounds.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Sagarika Ghosh, legal heir of the deceased assessee Dipankar Mohan Ghosh, filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court. The petition challenged a draft assessment order dated 12.08.2022 under Section 144C(1) and a final assessment order dated 28.10.2022 under Section 147 read with Section 144C(3) and Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. A valuation report dated 11.08.2022 was also challenged. The petitioner stated that notices from the Assessing Officer were not responded to because the assessee had expired, leading to no objections being filed before the Dispute Resolution Panel. The petitioner also noted that appeals against two prior orders dated 23.03.2020 and 30.03.2021 passed under Section 263 of the Act were pending before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), with arguments heard and orders awaited. The assessment orders under challenge stemmed from these Section 263 orders.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable in light of pending appeals before the ITAT concerning orders under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which form the basis of the assessment orders under challenge. 2. Whether the assessee's legal heir should be permitted to file an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] against the draft and final assessment orders and the valuation report, pending the decision of the ITAT on the Section 263 orders. Assessee's Contentions: - The assessee's legal heir could not file objections before the DRP due to the assessee's demise. - The only statutory remedy available for the impugned assessment orders was an appeal before the CIT(A). - The outcome of the pending ITAT appeals on the Section 263 orders would impact the current assessment orders. Revenue's Contentions: - The revenue, through its counsel, accepted notice and stated it would argue based on the available record, not filing a counter-affidavit. - The revenue agreed not to take coercive action against the petitioner pending the ITAT decision, provided an appeal was filed with the CIT(A).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144C,Section 147,Section 263

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

W.P.(C) 7277/2023

Page 1 of 3

$~35 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Date of decision : 26.05.2023

+ W.P.(C) 7277/2023 SAGARIKA GHOSH -LEGAL HEIR OF LATE SH. DIPANKAR MOHAN GHOSH- THROUGH HER SPA HOLDER UPENDRA NATH MARWAH

..... Petitioner

Through: Mr Sumit Lalchandani, Advocate.

versus

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE- 1(3)(1), INTL. TAXN. DELHI AND ANR ..... Respondents Through: Mr Ruchir Bhatia, Sr. Standing Counsel with Mr Pratyaksh Gupta, Jr. Standing Counsel.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA [Physical Hearing/Hybrid Hearing (as per request)] RAJIV SHAKDHER, J.: (ORAL)

CM APPL. 28302/2023 1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions. W.P.(C) 7277/2023 & CM No. 28301/2023 [Application filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking interim relief] 2. Issue notice. 3. Mr Ruchir Bhatia, learned senior standing counsel, who appears on behalf of the respondents/revenue, accepts notice. 4. Given the directions that we propose to pass, Mr Bhatia says that he does not wish to file a counter-affidavit in the matter, and he will argue the matter based on the record presently available with the court. Digitally Signed By:TARUN RANA Signing Date:23.06.2023 15:29:09 Signature Not Verified

W.P.(C) 7277/2023

Page 2 of 3

4.1 Therefore, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is taken up for hearing and final disposal, at this stage itself. 5. Mr Sumit Lalchandani, who appears on behalf of the petitioner/assessee, does not dispute that against two orders dated 23.03.2020 and 30.03.2021 passed under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short, “the Act”], appeals have been preferred by the petitioner with the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (in short, “Tribunal”). 6. We are informed by Mr Lalchanani that the arguments in the said appeals have been heard by the Tribunal, and orders are awaited. 7. Insofar as the instant writ petition is concerned, the petitioner has assailed the draft assessment order dated 12.08.2022 passed under Section 144C(1) of the Act, and the final assessment order dated 28.10.2022 passed under Section 147 read with Section 144C(3) and Section 263 of the Act. 7.1 Besides this, challenge is also laid to the valuation report dated 11.08.2022. 8. We are informed by Mr Lalchandani that the notices issued by the Assessing Officer (AO) did not receive any response as the assessee, i.e., Dipankar Mohan Ghosh, had expired. 9. To be noted, the petitioner is the legal heir of the deceased/assessee, Dipankar Mohan Ghosh. 10. Mr Lalchandani says that it is for this reason that objections before the Dispute Resolution Penal (DRP) were not filed. 10.1 It is in this backdrop, according to Mr Lalchandani, that the only other statutory remedy available to the petitioner qua the orders impugned before us, is by way of an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax Digitally Signed By:TARUN RANA Signing Date:23.06.2023 15:29:09 Signature Not Verified

W.P.(C) 7277/2023

Page 3 of 3

(Appeals) [in short, “CIT(A)”]. 10.2 As is evident, the impugned assessment order, i.e., both the draft and the final order, have their genesis in the aforementioned orders passed under Section 263 of the Act. In essence, the decision in the appeals pending before the Tribunal qua the said orders would have an impact on the orders impugned before us. 11. Given the peculiar facts of this case, Mr Bhatia submits that if an appeal is filed against the orders and the report impugned before us with the CIT(A), pending the decision in the appeals lodged before the Tribunal, no coercive action will be taken against the petitioner. 11.1 The statement of Mr Bhatia is taken on record. 12. The writ petition is disposed of with the following directions: (i) The petitioner/assessee will lodge an appeal with the CIT(A) within four weeks of receipt of the copy of this judgement. (ii) The respondents/revenue will not take any coercive measure against the petitioner, till such time a decision is rendered by the Tribunal in the aforementioned appeals, and for a period of three weeks thereafter. 13. Consequently, pending interlocutory application shall also stand closed.

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

GIRISH KATHPALIA, J

MAY 26, 2023 / tr Digitally Signed By:TARUN RANA Signing Date:23.06.2023 15:29:09 Signature Not Verified

More judgments on Section 144C

All 3,699 judgments and leading authorities on Section 144C →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →