VINOD RAINA HUF vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 53(1) DELHI & ORS.

PDF · subscribers
W.P.(C)/14602/2024HC DelhiDLHC01071016202416 December 2024Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA,HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court set aside the impugned order dated 30.08.2024 passed under Section 148A(d) and the impugned notice dated 31.08.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court directed the petitioner to file an additional reply to the notice dated 20.08.2024 issued under Section 148A(b) within two weeks from the date of the order. The Assessing Officer (AO) was instructed to consider the petitioner's earlier reply dated 27.08.2024, as well as any additional reply filed, and then pass an order in accordance with law. The Court clarified that if no additional reply is filed within the stipulated two weeks, the AO would proceed based on the available reply without further opportunity. All rights and contentions of the parties were reserved. The petition was disposed of in these terms.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Vinod Raina HUF, challenged an order dated 30.08.2024 passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and a notice dated 31.08.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Act. The Revenue, through its counsel, conceded that the impugned order and notice should be set aside. The Revenue proposed that the Assessing Officer (AO) be directed to re-decide the matter after considering the petitioner's reply. The High Court noted the petitioner's earlier reply dated 27.08.2024 and allowed for an additional reply within two weeks. The AO was directed to consider both replies before passing a fresh order.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the impugned order passed under Section 148A(d) and the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, are valid. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner, Vinod Raina HUF, challenged the validity of the impugned order and notice. Specific grounds for challenge are not detailed in the provided text. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue, through its counsel, fairly submitted that the impugned order and notice should be set aside and the Assessing Officer (AO) be directed to decide afresh after considering the petitioner's reply. The Revenue did not contest the setting aside of the impugned order and notice.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148A,Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

$~21 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 14602/2024 and CM APPL. 61330/2024 VINOD RAINA HUF .....Petitioner Through: Mr Nischaya Kantoor, Advocate. versus INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 53(1) DELHI & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr Indruj Singh Rai with Mr Sanjeev Menon, Mr Rahul Singh and Mr Anmol Jagga, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA O R D E R % 16.12.2024 1. The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, impugning an order dated 30.08.2024 (hereafter the impugned order) passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter the Act) as well as a notice dated 31.08.2024 (hereafter the impugned notice) issued under Section 148 of the Act. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the Revenue fairly submits that the impugned order and the impugned notice be set aside and the assessing officer (AO) be directed to decide afresh after considering the petitioner’s reply. 3. In view of the above, the impugned order and the impugned notice are set aside. The petitioner may file an additional reply to the notice dated 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 20/12/2024 at 12:58:13

20.08.2024 issued under Section 148A(b) of the Act within a period of two weeks from date. The AO shall consider the petitioner’s earlier reply dated 27.08.2024 as well as the additional reply which may be filed and accordingly pass an order as it considers fit in accordance with law. 4. It is clarified that if the petitioner does not file an additional reply within a period of two weeks, as stated above, the AO shall proceed on the basis of the available reply without affording the petitioner any further opportunity. The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Pending application shall also stand closed. 5. It is clarified that all rights and contentions of the parties are reserved. VIBHU BAKHRU, ACJ TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J DECEMBER 16, 2024/tr Click here to check corrigendum, if any 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 20/12/2024 at 12:58:13

More judgments on Section 148A

All 3,543 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →