PIYUSH KEYAL vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

PDF · subscribers
WPO/2048/2022HC CalcuttaWBCHCO002934202210 May 2022Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE MD. NIZAMUDDIN2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the impugned order dated March 23, 2022, passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was liable to be set aside. The Court found merit in the petitioner's submission that the AO had failed to consider the adjournment application filed on March 17, 2022, and proceeded to pass an ex-parte order without proper application of mind. The Court noted that the respondents' counsel could not contradict the petitioner's claims, which were supported by the record. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned order. The petitioner was granted liberty to file their objections to the notice under Section 148A(b) within seven days. Upon receipt of such objections, the AO was directed to consider them, pass a speaking order in accordance with the law, and provide an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The AO was also directed to adhere to the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in its judgment dated May 4, 2022, in the case of Union of India & Ors. V. Ashish Agarwal.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Piyush Keyal, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated March 23, 2022, passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner contended that the Assessing Officer (AO) violated the principles of natural justice and failed to apply their mind. Specifically, the petitioner claimed that they had sought an adjournment on March 17, 2022, via email through the department's official portal, in response to a notice under Section 148A(b) dated March 11, 2022. However, the AO allegedly did not consider this adjournment request and proceeded to pass an ex-parte order stating no response was received. The respondents' counsel could not contradict these allegations, which were supported by the record.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the impugned order dated March 23, 2022, passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is liable to be set aside on the grounds of violation of the principles of natural justice and non-application of mind by the Assessing Officer. Assessee's Contentions: The petitioner argued that the AO erred by passing an ex-parte order under Section 148A(d) without considering the petitioner's email seeking an adjournment on March 17, 2022. The petitioner contended that this constituted a violation of natural justice and a failure to apply mind to the available response. The petitioner relied on the fact that their adjournment request was submitted through the official portal. Revenue's Contentions: The learned Advocate appearing for the respondents could not contradict the petitioner's allegations, which were substantiated by the record. No specific arguments or reliance on authorities were recorded for the revenue.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

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

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

OD – 52

ORDER SHEET WPO/2048/2022 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION ORIGINAL SIDE

PIYUSH KEYAL VS UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE MD. NIZAMUDDIN Date : 10TH MAY, 2022.

Appearance: Mr. Pratyush Jhunjhunwala, Adv. Mr. S. Rudra, Adv. ..for the petitioner

Mr. S. Roy Chowdhury, Adv. Mr. Soumen Bhattacharjee, Adv. ..for the respondents

The Court : In this writ petition, petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 23rd March, 2022 under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on the ground of violation of principle of natural justice and non-application of mind on the part of the Assessing Officer concerned in recording that no response to the notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act was given by the petitioner, while it appears from record that petitioner had sought an adjournment on 17th March, 2022 through e-mail in the official portal of the Department. The Assessing Officer neither considered the adjournment application nor rejected it and passed the ex parte order by recording that no response was given to the impugned notice.

Learned Advocate appearing for the respondents could not contradict the allegations of the petitioner which are substantiated by record. Considering the submissions of the parties, this writ petition being WPO No. 2048 of 2022 is disposed of by setting aside the impugned order dated 23rd March, 2022 with liberty to the petitioner to file objection to the impugned notice dated 11th March, 2022 under Section 148A(b) of the Act within seven days from date and if such objection is filed by the petitioner within the time stipulated herein, the Assessing Officer concerned shall consider the same and pass the speaking order in accordance with law and after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner or its authorised representative and the Assessing Officer will also observe the law and guidelines laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in its recent judgement dated 4th May, 2022 in the case of Union of India & Ors. V. Ashish Agarwal in Civil Appeal No. 3005 of 2022.

(MD. NIZAMUDDIN, J.)

Sbghosh

More judgments on Section 148A(d)

All 544 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148A(d) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →