ISHMEET KAUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND ANOTHER

PDF · subscribers
CWP/29022/2024HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01144198202429 October 2024Bench: MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that, prima facie, based on the Assessing Officer's (AO) observations that no incriminating evidence was found for Assessment Years 2015-16, 2016-17, 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21, and 2021-22, there was no cause of action for the petitioner to file a writ petition. The court found no reason to interfere at this stage. Regarding the notice under Section 142(1) for AY 2016-17, the court noted that it did not, in any manner, reflect proceedings under Section 153C, and the petitioner could always file a reply to the said notice. The court concluded that no case was made out for interference and dismissed the writ petition accordingly. The petitioner was advised that they were free to raise objections before the concerned authority and file an appeal as per the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Ishmeet Kaur, filed a writ petition challenging notices issued by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Years (AY) 2015-16, 2016-17, 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21, and 2021-22. The petitioner argued that the AO's report indicated no incriminating evidence was found for AY 2015-16, 2016-17, 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21, and 2021-22. The petitioner contended that the notice for AY 2016-17 did not reflect proceedings under Section 153C of the Act. The Revenue was represented by the Senior Standing Counsel.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the writ petition filed by the petitioner is maintainable given the AO's observation that there is no incriminating evidence available for Assessment Years 2015-16, 2016-17, 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21, and 2021-22, and thus no cause of action arises. (Question of law/mixed law and fact) 2. Whether the notice issued under Section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2016-17, which the petitioner claims does not reflect proceedings under Section 153C, warrants interference at this stage. (Question of law/mixed law and fact) Assessee's Contentions: The petitioner argued that the AO's own report indicated no incriminating evidence for the specified assessment years, suggesting no basis for further action or a cause of action for the petition. The petitioner also contended that the notice for AY 2016-17 did not reflect proceedings under Section 153C. Revenue's Contentions: The Revenue, through its Sr. Standing Counsel, did not explicitly record arguments in the judgment. However, the court's observation implies the Revenue likely contested the maintainability of the writ petition at this stage.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 142(1),Section 153C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CWP-29022-202 112 IN TH ISHMEET KA INCOME TA

CORAM: H

H Present: M

SANJEEV P

1.

Prima f (for sho the dep 2019-2 arising 2. So far a 1961 to the sam 153C o to the s 24 (O&M) Page 1 of 2 HE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA CHANDIGAR

AUR Vs.

AX OFFICER AND ANOTHER **** HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SAN HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SAN **** Mr. Nikhil Goyal, Advocate for t Mr. Yogesh Putney, Sr. Standing for the respondents/Revenue. **** RAKASH SHARMA, J.(Oral) facie keeping in view the observ ort ‘AO’) that there is no incrim partment for Assessment Year 0, 2020-21 and 2021-22, we d in favour of the petitioner to file as the notice issued under section o the petitioner for the Assessm me does not in any manner ref of the Act to be recorded. The p aid notice. AB AND HARYANA AT RH CWP-29022-2024 (O&M) Date of Decision: 29.10.2024 . . . . Petitioner . . . . Respondents NJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA NJAY VASHISTH the petitioner. g Counsel ) vations of the Assessing Officer minating evidence available with ar 2015-16, 2016-17, 2018-19, do not find any cause of action e any petition. n 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, ment Year 2016-17 is concerned, flect proceedings under section etitioner can always file a reply

) 4 r s r h , n , , n y MOHIT GOYAL 2024.10.29 13:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-29022-202 3. No case stage. 4. Writ Pe 5. The pe concern Income

October 29, 20 Mohit goyal 1. Whethe 2. Whethe 24 (O&M) Page 2 of 2 e is made out for interference as etition stands dismissed accordin etitioner is always free to take ned authority and even file an ap e Tax Act, 1961.

(SANJ 024 r speaking/reasoned?

Y r reportable?

Y s no cause of action arises at this ngly. e up his objections before the ppeal as per the provisions of the JEEV PRAKASH SHARMA) JUDGE

(SANJAY VASHISTH) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No

s e e MOHIT GOYAL 2024.10.29 13:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

More judgments on Section 142(1)

All 17,244 judgments and leading authorities on Section 142(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →