SOPAL SINGH vs. UNION OF INDIA AND 2 OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
WTAX/3736/2025HC AllahabadUPHC01394289202521 September 20252 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the petitioner should be allowed to file an appeal against the assessment order, notwithstanding the delay. The Court directed the petitioner to file the appeal within two weeks from the date of the order. Upon such filing, the assessing authority was directed to condone the delay and thereafter pass an order in accordance with law after granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The Court did not explicitly decide on the merits of the alleged miscommunication or breach of natural justice in relation to quashing the assessment order itself, but rather provided a procedural remedy by allowing a delayed appeal with a mandate for a fresh hearing. The writ petition was disposed of with these directions.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Sopal Singh, filed a writ petition before the Allahabad High Court challenging an Assessment Order dated 24.12.2024, passed by respondent no. 2 under Section 147 read with Section 144 and Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner also sought to quash any penalty proceedings initiated pursuant to this order. The petitioner contended that due to miscommunication, the assessment order was not communicated, preventing timely filing of an appeal. Furthermore, the petitioner claimed a breach of natural justice as no opportunity of hearing was granted. The assessment year(s) are not explicitly stated in the judgment.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the petitioner should be allowed to file an appeal against the assessment order despite the delay in filing. 2. Whether the assessment order is liable to be quashed on the grounds of miscommunication and breach of natural justice due to lack of opportunity of hearing. Assessee's Contentions: The petitioner argued that the assessment order was not communicated to him, which led to the delay in filing an appeal. He also contended that the order was passed in breach of the principles of natural justice as he was not granted an opportunity of hearing. The petitioner relied on general principles of natural justice. Revenue's Contentions: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the revenue.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144,Section 144B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT TAX No. - 3736 of 2025 Court No. - 3 HON'BLE SHEKHAR B. SARAF, J. HON'BLE PRAVEEN KUMAR GIRI, J. 1. Heard Sri Antik Majurder and Sri Tanmay Sadh, learned counsel the petitioner, Sri Abhishek Shukla, learned counsel for the Income Tax Department and learned standing counsel for the state-respondents. 2. By means of the present petition, the petitioner seeks the following relief: "(i). Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to set aside/quash the impugned Assessment Order dated 24.12.2024 passed by the respondent no.2 under Section 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. (ii). Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to set aside/quash any penalty proceeding initiated in pursuance to the passing of the impugned Assessment Order dated 24.12.2024." 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that due to miscommunication, the assessment order was not communicated to the petitioner and, therefore, he unable to file the appeal within time. He further submitted that no opportunity of hearing was granted to him and, therefore, the impugned order is breach of principles of natural justice. 4. Upon considering the matter at length, we are of the view that the petitioner should be allowed to appeal against the assessment order in spite of the delay in filing of the said appeal. 5. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to file an appeal within a period of two weeks from date. If such an appeal is filed, the authority is directed to condon the said delay and thereafter passed an order in accordance with law Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Tanmay Sadh Counsel for Respondent(s) : A.S.G.I., Gaurav Mahajan, Krishna Agarawal Sopal Singh .....Petitioner(s) Union Of India And 2 Others .....Respondent(s)

after granting opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 6. With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition is disposed of. September 22, 2025 Sanjeet WTAX No. 3736 of 2025 2 (Praveen Kumar Giri,J.) (Shekhar B. Saraf,J.) Digitally signed by :- SANJEET KUMAR YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →