SH. KULBHUSHAN MITTAL vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ANR.

PDF · subscribers
W.P.(C)/9092/2022HC DelhiDLHC01022647202203 June 2022Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the impugned order dated March 29, 2022, passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, was liable to be set aside. The Court observed that the Income Tax Department's portal itself recorded the filing of a reply by the petitioner on March 14, 2022. Since this reply was filed within the stipulated time granted by the PCIT, the Court was of the view that it should have been considered at least while passing the impugned order. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax for a fresh decision in accordance with law, after considering the replies filed by the petitioner. The petitioner was directed to file physical copies of his replies dated March 14, 2022, and March 16, 2022, with the PCIT within a week. The rights and contentions of all parties were left open.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Sh. Kulbhushan Mittal, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated March 29, 2022, passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) invoking jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner contended that his replies dated March 14, 2022, and March 16, 2022, were not considered before the impugned order was passed. The revenue, represented by Mr. Puneet Rai, stated that the petitioner's replies were not reflected on the PCIT's portal, which led to them not being taken into account. The High Court noted that the Income Tax Department's portal itself indicated the filing of a reply on March 14, 2022, within the stipulated time.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the impugned order dated March 29, 2022, passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax invoking jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is vitiated by non-consideration of the petitioner's replies dated March 14, 2022, and March 16, 2022. Assessee's contention: The petitioner argued that the impugned order was passed without considering the replies filed by him on March 14, 2022, and March 16, 2022, which were submitted within the time granted by the PCIT. Revenue's contention: The revenue contended that the petitioner's replies were not reflected on the PCIT's portal, and therefore, they were not taken into account when passing the impugned order.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 263

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

$~33 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 9092/2022 SH. KULBHUSHAN MITTAL ..... Petitioner Through: Ms.Suruchi Mittal, Advocate. versus PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ANR. ..... Respondents Through: Mr.Puneet Rai, senior standing counsel for the Revenue with Ms.Adeeba Mujahid, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA O R D E R % 03.06.2022 C.M.No.27261/2022 Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions. Accordingly, the application stands disposed of. W.P.(C) No.9092/2022 & C.M.No.27262/2022 Present writ petition has been challenging the order dated 29th March, 2022 whereby jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) has been invoked by the respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the replies dated 14th March, 2022 and 16th March, 2022 filed by the petitioner were not considered while passing the impugned order dated 29th March, 2022. Issue notice. Mr.Puneet Rai, learned standing counsel accepts notice This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/06/2026 at 19:44:12

on behalf of the respondents-revenue. He states that as the petitioners replies were not reflecting on the portal of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, he did not take the same into account. A perusal of the paper book also reveals that the portal of the Income Tax Department itself records that a reply dated 14th March, 2022 was filed by the petitioner. Since the said reply had been filed within the stipulated time granted by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, this Court is of the view that the same should have been taken into account at least while passing the impugned order. Consequently, the impugned order dated 29th March, 2022 is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax for a fresh decision in accordance with law, after considering the replies filed by the petitioner. The petitioner is directed to file physical copies of his replies dated 14th March, 2022 and 16th March, 2022 with the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax within a week. With the aforesaid directions, present writ petition along with pending application is disposed of. The rights and contentions of all the parties are left open. MANMOHAN, J MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J JUNE 3, 2022 KA This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/06/2026 at 19:44:12

More judgments on Section 263

All 13,616 judgments and leading authorities on Section 263 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →