ISHMEET KAUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND ANOTHER

PDF · subscribers
CWP/29026/2024HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01143935202429 October 2024Bench: MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that no cause of action arises at this stage. The court observed that the Assessing Officer's prima facie view indicated no incriminating evidence for most of the assessment years in question. For Assessment Year 2018-19, the court noted that the notice under Section 142(1) did not reflect proceedings under Section 153C, and the petitioner was free to file a reply to the notice. The court found no grounds for interference and stated that the petitioner is always free to raise her objections before the concerned authority and even file an appeal as per the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The operative direction was the dismissal of the petition.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Ishmeet Kaur, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana challenging notices issued by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The notices pertained to Assessment Years 2015-16, 2016-17, 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21, and 2021-22. The petitioner argued that the AO's observation indicated no incriminating evidence was available with the department for these assessment years. The AO, however, noted that for Assessment Year 2018-19, the notice under Section 142(1) did not reflect proceedings under Section 153C of the Act. The petitioner was advised that she could file a reply to the notice.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable at this stage, considering the AO's prima facie observation that there is no incriminating evidence for Assessment Years 2015-16, 2016-17, 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21, and 2021-22, and the petitioner's contention that the notice under Section 142(1) for AY 2018-19 does not reflect proceedings under Section 153C. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the AO's own observations suggest no incriminating evidence, thus no cause of action arises for the department. The petitioner also pointed out that the notice for AY 2018-19 did not mention proceedings under Section 153C. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record specific arguments from the revenue. However, the court's decision implies that the revenue's position was that the petitioner could respond to the notice and pursue further remedies.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 142(1),Section 153C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CWP-29026-202 113 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-29026-2024 (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 2018-19 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-29026-202 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 →