KRISHNA YADAV vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD 65(2),DELHI

PDF · subscribers
W.P.(C)/3999/2018HC DelhiDLHC01113810201812 July 2024Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The Delhi High Court confirmed its earlier interim order dated April 23, 2018, which had stayed coercive recovery steps subject to the petitioner filing an undertaking not to dispose of immovable properties without permission. The Court disposed of the writ petition, leaving it open for the petitioner to pursue their pending appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The undertaking provided by the petitioner to the Court will continue to be in effect until the appeal is finally disposed of. The Court did not decide on the merits of the demand or the validity of the recovery actions, as the primary avenue for redressal was the pending appeal.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Krishna Yadav, filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court challenging a demand notice dated February 26, 2018, and subsequent recovery actions, including notices under Section 226(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The demand of Rs. 55,06,510/- pertains to the assessment year 2015-16. On April 23, 2018, the High Court granted a stay on coercive recovery steps, subject to the petitioner filing an undertaking not to dispose of immovable properties without court permission. The interim order has remained in effect. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] has not yet disposed of the appeal filed by the petitioner.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the demand notice dated February 26, 2018, and subsequent recovery actions for assessment year 2015-16 are liable to be quashed or set aside? (Question of law/mixed law and fact) 2. Whether coercive steps for the recovery of arrears and demand for assessment year 2015-16 should be prohibited? (Question of law/mixed law and fact) The petitioner sought to quash the demand notice and subsequent recovery actions, including notices under Section 226(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and prayed for a mandamus to prevent coercive steps for recovery of the demand for assessment year 2015-16. The respondent, Income Tax Officer, Ward 65(2), Delhi, accepted notice. The judgment does not record specific arguments from the revenue regarding the merits of the demand or the petitioner's contentions.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 226(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

$~15 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 3999/2018

KRISHNA YADAV

.....Petitioner

Through: Mr. Rohit Madan, Adv.

versus

INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD 65(2), DELHI

.....Respondent

Through: Mr. Aseem Chawla, SSC with Ms. Nancy Jain, JSC, Ms. Pratishtha Chaudhary & Mr. Naveen Rohila, Advs.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA

12.07.2024 O R D E R 1. This writ petition has been preferred seeking the following reliefs:- “(A) Issue a writ m the nature of Certiorari thereby quashing/setting aside the letter I notice of demand dated 26.02.2018 and all actions pursuant thereto including notices under section 226 (3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for recovery of arrears and demand of Rs. 55,06,510/( outstanding demand) for the assessment year2015-16. (B) Issue a writ a mandamus to the respondent to not to take coercive steps against the Petitioner for the recovery of the arrears and demand for the assessment year2015-16. (C) Such other writ/order/direction as may be deemed just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. We note that on the first date when the matter was taken up on 23 April 2018, the following order came to be passed: -

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 18/07/2024 at 12:12:42

“WP(C) No.3999/2018 & CM No.15785/2018 Issue notice, returnable on 6.8.2018. Notice is accepted on behalf of the respondent. Counter-affidavit would be filed within four weeks. Rejoinder thereto, if any, would be filed within four weeks, after the counter affidavit is served. In the meanwhile, there will be stay of recovery through coercive steps till the next date of hearing, subject to the petitioner filing an undertaking in this Court that she will not dispose of immovable properties purchased by her without the permission of the Court/authorities. Further, in case of an adverse order in the writ petition, appropriate directions would be made. Dasti under signature of the Court Master.” 3. It is the aforesaid interim order which has continued till date. We are also informed that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [“CIT(A)”] is yet to dispose of the appeal which was instituted. 4. In view of the aforesaid, while we confirm the order of 23 April 2018, we dispose of the writ petition leaving it open for the writ petitioner to pursue the pending appeal. The undertaking proffered before this Court shall continue to enure till such as time the appeal is finally disposed of.

YASHWANT VARMA, J.

RAVINDER DUDEJA, J. JULY 12, 2024/neha

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 18/07/2024 at 12:12:42

More judgments on Section 226(3)

All 95 judgments and leading authorities on Section 226(3) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →