VEENA MADAN vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD 28(2) & ANR.

PDF · subscribers
W.P.(C)/6670/2022HC DelhiDLHC01016132202227 April 2022Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SHARMA2 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court declined to interfere with the assessment order in its writ jurisdiction, noting that the petitioner had already filed an appeal before the CIT(A). Regarding the penalty orders, since the time for filing an appeal had expired, the Court permitted the petitioner to file an appeal before the appellate authority within two weeks. The Court directed that this appeal should not be dismissed on the ground of limitation. The CIT(A) was directed to decide the appeals expeditiously, preferably within six months. The Court explicitly stated that it had not commented on the merits of the controversy and left the rights and contentions of all parties open. The ratio decidendi is that while writ jurisdiction is not to be used to bypass statutory remedies, condonation of delay for filing appeals against penalty orders can be granted in appropriate circumstances, and appellate authorities should decide matters expeditiously.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Veena Madan, filed a writ petition challenging an assessment order dated December 7, 2019, passed under Section 147 read with Section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and penalty orders dated March 15, 2022, passed under Sections 271(1)(c), 271(1)(b), and 271F of the Act for Assessment Year 2012-13. The petitioner had already filed an appeal before the CIT(A) against the assessment order. The time period for filing an appeal against the penalty orders had expired.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court should entertain a writ petition challenging an assessment order when an appeal has already been filed before the CIT(A)? (Question of law and fact, concerning the scope of writ jurisdiction and availability of alternative remedies). 2. Whether the petitioner should be permitted to file an appeal against the penalty orders after the expiry of the limitation period? (Question of law, concerning condonation of delay). Assessee's Contention: The petitioner sought to challenge both the assessment and penalty orders. The petitioner implicitly argued for the High Court's intervention in the writ jurisdiction. The petitioner sought permission to file an appeal against the penalty orders, implying a request for condonation of delay. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record specific contentions from the revenue. However, the revenue was represented by counsel.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144,Section 271(1)(c),Section 271(1)(b),Section 271F

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

W.P.(C) 6670/2022 Page 1 of 2 $~120 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 6670/2022 & CM APPLs.20240-20241/2022 VEENA MADAN ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Manuj Sabharwal, Advocate. versus INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD 28(2) & ANR. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Shailendra Singh, Advocate. % Date of Decision: 27th April, 2022 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SHARMA J U D G M E N T MANMOHAN, J (Oral): 1. Present Writ Petition has been filed challenging the assessment order dated 7th December, 2019 passed under Section 147 read with 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act’), the penalty orders dated 15th March, 2022 passed under Section 271(1)(c), 271(1)(b) and 271F of the Act for the Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. A perusal of the paper book reveals that petitioner has already filed an appeal before the CIT(A) challenging the impugned assessment order. Consequently, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned assessment order in the writ jurisdiction. 3. Since the time period for filing the appeal to challenge the penalty This is a digitally signed Judgement. NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/001570

W.P.(C) 6670/2022 Page 2 of 2 orders has expired, this Court permits the petitioner to file an appeal before the appellate authority challenging the penalty orders within two weeks. In the event, the said appeal is filed within two weeks, the same shall not be dismissed on the ground of limitation. 4. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) is directed to decide the appeals filed by the petitioner as expeditiously as possible preferably within six months. 5. With the aforesaid direction, the present writ petition and application stand disposed of. This Court clarifies that it has not commented on the merits of the controversy. The rights and contentions of all the parties are left open. MANMOHAN, J DINESH KUMAR SHARMA, J APRIL 27, 2022 AS This is a digitally signed Judgement. NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/001570

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →