ISHMEET KAUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND ANOTHER

PDF · subscribers
CWP/29029/2024HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01144139202429 October 2024Bench: MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court, prima facie, observed that the Assessing Officer (AO) noted no incriminating evidence available with the department for Assessment Years 2015-16, 2016-17, 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21, and 2021-22. Based on this observation, the court found no cause of action for the petitioner to file a writ petition. Specifically concerning the notice issued under Section 142(1) for Assessment Year 2015-16, the court stated that it does not in any manner reflect proceedings under Section 153C of the Act. The court held that no case is made out for interference at this stage. The petitioner was advised that they are always free to take up their objections before the concerned authority and even file an appeal as per the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The writ petition was dismissed accordingly.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Ishmeet Kaur, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana challenging notices issued under Section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The notices were for Assessment Years 2015-16, 2016-17, 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21, and 2021-22. The petitioner argued that the Assessing Officer (AO) noted no incriminating evidence for these assessment years. The revenue was represented by the Income Tax Officer and another. The dispute concerns the validity of the notices issued for the specified assessment years.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Assessing Officer's observation that there is no incriminating evidence available with the department for Assessment Years 2015-16, 2016-17, 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21, and 2021-22, renders the notices issued under Section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2015-16, invalid, as they do not reflect proceedings under Section 153C of the Act. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that since the AO himself noted the absence of incriminating evidence for the relevant assessment years, the notices issued under Section 142(1) are not justified and do not reflect proceedings under Section 153C. Therefore, there is no cause of action for the petition. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record specific arguments from the revenue regarding the validity of the notices or the absence of incriminating evidence. However, the court's observation implies that the revenue did not present a case for interference 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-29029-202 114 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-29029-2024 (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 2015-16 is concerned, flect proceedings under section etitioner can always file a reply

) 4 r s r h , n , , n y MOHIT GOYAL 2024.11.04 15:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-29029-202 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 2024.11.04 15:53 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 →