SATBIR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 35(5) DELHI & ANR.

PDF · subscribers
W.P.(C)/14499/2023HC DelhiDLHC01044661202316 January 2024Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that there were no grounds to interfere with the impugned proceedings. The Court noted that while the notice under Section 148A(b) was returned undelivered, the order under Section 148A(d) was duly served at the address available in the PAN database. The Court found this to be in line with the principles laid down in the Supreme Court judgment in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai vs. I-Ven Interactive Ltd. [(2019) 10 SCC 13]. The Court dismissed the writ petition but granted liberty to the petitioner to raise all other permissible objections before the Assessing Officer. No specific issue was left undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Satbir, filed a writ petition challenging proceedings initiated under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The challenge was primarily based on the alleged non-service of a notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act. The respondents, Income Tax Officer Ward 35(5), Delhi & Anr., submitted that while the notice under Section 148A(b) was returned undelivered, the subsequent order under Section 148A(d) was duly served at the same address, which was the address available in the PAN database. No alternate address was provided by the petitioner. The High Court considered the submissions and a Supreme Court judgment.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the initiation of proceedings under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is vitiated due to the alleged non-service of the notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act, when the subsequent order under Section 148A(d) was served at the address available in the PAN database. Assessee's Contention: The primary ground for challenging the proceedings was the non-service of the notice referable to clause (b) of Section 148A of the Act. Revenue's Contention: The notice under Section 148A(b) was returned undelivered, but the order under Section 148A(d) was duly served upon the assessee at the same address, which was the address available on the PAN database. No other alternate address was provided by the petitioner. Reliance was placed on the Supreme Court judgment in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai vs. I-Ven Interactive Ltd. [(2019) 10 SCC 13].

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

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

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

$~30 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 14499/2023 & CM APPL. 57526-57527/2023 (Stay) SATBIR ..... Petitioner Through: Ms. Surbhi Chandra, Adv. versus INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 35(5) DELHI & ANR. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Vipul Agrawal, SSC with Mr. Gibran Naushad & Ms. Sakashi Shaiwal, JSCs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV O R D E R % 16.01.2024 1. The instant writ petition assails the proceedings under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act”] as initiated by the respondents. On a reading of the earlier order passed as well as the submissions addressed, it would appear that the initiation of proceedings under Section 148 of the Act was challenged solely on the ground of a notice referable to clause (b) of Section 148A of the Act having not been served upon the petitioner. 2. Pursuant to the liberty granted, Mr. Agrawal, learned counsel representing the respondents, has obtained instructions which have also been placed on our record. 3. From those instructions Mr. Agrawal points out that although the notice referable to clause (b) of Section 148A was returned undelivered, the order under Section 148A(d) of the Act was duly This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 22/05/2024 at 12:13:49

served upon the assessee at the same address. It is also his contention that the notice was issued at the address which was available on the PAN data base. Mr. Agrawal points out that no other alternate address or particulars had been provided by the petitioner. 4. In view of the aforesaid and bearing in mind the judgment of the Supreme Court in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai vs. I-Ven Interactive Ltd. [(2019) 10 SCC 13], we find no ground to interfere with the impugned proceedings. 5. Accordingly, while the writ petition fails, we leave it open to the writ petitioner to raise all other objections that may be otherwise permissible in law in the course of proceedings before the concerned Assessing Officer. 6. The writ petition along with pending applications stands dismissed. YASHWANT VARMA, J PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J JANUARY 16, 2024/kk This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 22/05/2024 at 12:13:49

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →