MELA SINGH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD SUNAM AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/10647/2023HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01061599202325 May 20232 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that it could not examine the facts of the case in a writ petition at this stage. The Court noted that after going through the impugned order dated 30.03.2023 (Annexure P-10), the petitioner was required to file a detailed reply to the notice issued by the respondent-department. The Court found that this fact could not be examined by it in a writ petition. Therefore, the petition was dismissed. However, the petitioner was granted liberty to avail his remedy in accordance with law after filing a reply to the notice dated 30.03.2023 (Annexure P-10). The Court did not decide on the merits of the escaped income or the validity of the re-assessment proceedings themselves.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Mela Singh, is challenging an order dated 30.03.2023 passed by the Income Tax Officer (ITO) under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. This order was issued for Assessment Year 2016-2017. The case was selected under the RMS Non-filer PAN category. The ITO noted cash deposits of Rs.64,00,000/- in the petitioner's savings bank account with the State Bank of India during the Financial Year 2015-2016, which earned interest of Rs.20,000/-. These deposits were not explained by the petitioner. A notice under Section 148A(b) was previously issued on 24.03.2023, requiring the petitioner to explain why these amounts should not be added to his income as escaped assessment. The escaped income is stated to be Rs.64,00,000/-, which, under Section 149 of the Act, allows for re-assessment proceedings up to 10 years.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court can examine the merits of the case in a writ petition when the petitioner has not yet filed a detailed reply to the notice issued by the respondent-department under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961? The petitioner argued that the order dated 30.03.2023 (Annexure P-10) passed by the respondent No.1 under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, should be quashed. The revenue, represented by Mr. Vaibhav Gupta, Advocate, contended that the petitioner had not filed a detailed reply to the notice issued by the department, and therefore, the High Court should not examine the facts of the case in a writ petition. The revenue's argument implicitly supports the procedural stage of the assessment proceedings.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148A,Section 148A(b),Section 148A(d),Section 149

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

2023:PHHC:076710-DB CWP No.10647 of 2023 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CWP No.10647 of 2023 (O&M) Date of decision: 25.05.2023

Mela Singh .....Petitioner Versus The Income Tax Officer and others ....Respondents CORAM:HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present: Mr. S.K. Mukhi, Advocate, and Mr. Paras Jain, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Vaibhav Gupta, Advocate, for the respondents. *** Ritu Bahri, J. Petitioner is seeking quashing of the order dated 30.03.2023 (Annexure P-10) passed by respondent No.1 under Section 148A (d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2016-2017. A perusal of the order dated 30.03.2023 (Annexure P-10) shows that the case of the petitioner-assessee was selected under the category RMS Non-filer PAN case. As per Insight Portal, cash deposits amounting to Rs.64,00,000/- in the saving bank account of the petitioner maintained with State Bank of India, which has earned interest of Rs.20,000/- during the Financial Year 2015-2016, relevant to Assessment Year 2016-2017, has not AJAY PRASHER 2023.05.30 08:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

2023:PHHC:076710-DB CWP No.10647 of 2023 (O&M) -2- been explained and in this backdrop, the impugned notice has been issued after getting approval from the competent authority. Before passing the order dated 30.03.2023, initially a notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act was issued to the petitioner on 24.03.2023 (Annexure P-6). Even in that notice, it was stated that the petitioner-assessee was required to explain, as to why Rs.64,00,000/- were not added to his income as the same has escaped assessment. In this case, the escaped income is Rs.64,00,000/- and as per Section 149 of the Act, if the escaped income is more than Rs.50,00,000/-, the re-assessment proceedings can be initiated up till 10 years. After going through the impugned order dated 30.03.2023 (Annexure P-10), the petitioner has to file a detailed reply to the notice issued by the respondent-department. This fact cannot be examined by this Court in a writ petition. Resultantly, the present petition is dismissed. However, the petitioner is at liberty to avail his remedy in accordance with law, after filing reply to the notice dated 30.03.2023 (Annexure P-10). (RITU BAHRI)

JUDGE

(MANISHA BATRA) 25.05.2023 JUDGE ajp Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No AJAY PRASHER 2023.05.30 08:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

More judgments on Section 148A

All 3,543 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →