ANISH MALHOTRA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND ANR CIRCLE 43 1 DELHI

PDF · subscribers
W.P.(C)/16908/2024HC DelhiDLHC01089527202406 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 Delhi High Court, in view of the submissions made by the Revenue, considered it appropriate to set aside the impugned notice dated 28.08.2024 issued under Section 148 and the impugned order dated 28.08.2024 issued under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer (AO). The petitioner was granted liberty to file a response to the notice dated 13.08.2024 issued under Section 148A(b) within one week from the date of the order. The AO was directed to consider the petitioner's response and pass an appropriate order in accordance with the law. The Court clarified that all rights and contentions of the parties were reserved. No specific finding was given on the merits of the case as the matter was disposed of on procedural grounds.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Anish Malhotra, filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court challenging a notice dated 28.08.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2018-19. This notice was preceded by a notice under Section 148A(b) dated 13.08.2024 and an order under Section 148A(d) dated 28.08.2024. The petitioner contended that he did not have an opportunity to respond to the Section 148A(b) notice as it was sent to an incorrect email ID. Furthermore, the impugned order under Section 148A(d) was passed without considering the petitioner's response to the information that the Assessing Officer believed indicated income escaping assessment.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the impugned notice dated 28.08.2024 under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for AY 2018-19 is liable to be quashed on the ground that the petitioner was not afforded an opportunity to reply to the notice under Section 148A(b) due to it being sent to a wrong email ID? 2. Whether the order dated 28.08.2024 under Section 148A(d) of the Act is liable to be quashed for being passed without considering the petitioner's response to the information suggesting income escaping assessment? Assessee's Contentions: - The petitioner argued that the notice under Section 148A(b) was sent to an incorrect email ID, thereby denying him an opportunity to respond. - The petitioner contended that the order under Section 148A(d) was passed without considering his response to the AO's information. Revenue's Contentions: - The learned counsel for the Revenue fairly stated that the petitioner's grievance could be addressed by granting him another opportunity to respond to the notice under Section 148A(b).

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

$~76 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 16908/2024 and CM APPLs. 71618-19/2024 ANISH MALHOTRA .....Petitioner Through: Vikas Jain with Mr Aviral Saxena, Mr Shrawani and Mr Hardik Jayal, Advocates. versus ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND ANR CIRCLE 43 1 DELHI .....Respondents Through: Mr Anant Mann, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA O R D E R % 06.12.2024 1. Issue notice. The learned counsel for the respondents accept notice. 2. The petitioner has filed the present petition inter alia impugning a notice dated 28.08.2024 (hereafter impugned notice) issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter the Act) for the Assessment Year (AY) 2018-19. The aforesaid impugned notice was preceded by a notice dated 13.08.2024 issued under Section 148A(b) of the Act as well as an order dated 28.08.2024 under Section 148A(d) of the Act (hereafter impugned order). Apart from the other contentions, the petitioner’s case is that he had no opportunity to reply to the notice issued under Section 148A(b) of the Act as it was e-mailed to a wrong e-mail ID. The impugned order under Section 148A(d) of the Act has been passed without considering the petitioner’s response to the information which according to the 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 10/12/2024 at 11:03:58

Assessing Officer (AO) was suggestive of petitioner’s income escaping assessment. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the Revenue fairly states that the petitioner’s grievance in this regard can be addressed if the petitioner is granted yet another opportunity to respond to the notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act. 4. In view of the aforesaid submissions, we consider it apposite to set aside the impugned notice and the impugned order issued under Section 148 and 148A(d) of the Act and restore the matter before the AO. The petitioner is at liberty to file a response to the notice dated 13.08.2024 issued under Section 148A(b) of the Act within a period of one week from date. The learned AO shall consider the petitioner’s response and pass an appropriate order in accordance with the law. 5. It is clarified that all the rights and contentions of the parties are reserved. 6. The writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Pending applications shall also stand disposed of. ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J DECEMBER 06, 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 10/12/2024 at 11:03:58

More judgments on Section 148

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →