RAMRATI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 34(5) DELHI & ANR.

PDF · subscribers
W.P.(C)/12368/2023HC DelhiDLHC01037385202320 September 2023Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The Delhi High Court held that the principles of natural justice were violated, as submitted by the petitioner's counsel. The Court noted that the Assessing Officer (AO) proceeded on the basis that no response was filed by the petitioner, which, according to the instructions received by the revenue's counsel, was not correct. Therefore, the Court set aside the impugned order dated March 25, 2023, passed under Section 148A(d) and the consequent notice dated March 25, 2023, issued under Section 148. The AO was granted liberty to pass a fresh order after considering the reply filed by the petitioner and after affording a personal hearing to the petitioner or her authorized representative. The Court explicitly stated that no opinion was expressed on the merits of the case, and the AO would be free to decide the matter on merits.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Ramrati, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated March 25, 2023, passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and a consequent notice dated March 25, 2023, issued under Section 148 of the Act. These impugned actions pertained to Assessment Year 2016-17. The revenue alleged that the petitioner sold a property and received undisclosed consideration of Rs. 1,52,50,000/-, information obtained via the Non Filing Monitoring (NMS). The petitioner was initially asked to reply by March 6, 2023, and later granted an extension until March 15, 2023. The petitioner claimed to have uploaded a reply on March 15, 2023. However, the Assessing Officer (AO) proceeded on the basis that no response was filed.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the principles of natural justice were violated by the Assessing Officer passing an order under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, without considering the reply filed by the petitioner? Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that a reply was indeed filed on March 15, 2023, and the AO's assumption that no response was filed violated the principles of natural justice. The petitioner relied on the fact that her reply was uploaded on the designated portal. Revenue's Contention: The revenue, through its counsel, indicated that while the petitioner claimed to have filed a reply, instructions received suggested that the reply was indeed available on the designated portal on the stipulated date, contradicting the AO's finding in the impugned order.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

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

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

W.P.(C) 12368/2023

Page 1 of 3

$~46 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI %

Date of Decision: 20.09.2023 + W.P.(C) 12368/2023

RAMRATI

..... Petitioner

Through: Ms Shurbhi Chandra, Advocate.

versus

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 34(5) DELHI & ANR. ..... Respondents

Through: Mr Vipul Agrawal, Sr. Standing

Counsel with Mr Gibran Naushad and

Ms Shakshi Shairwal, Jr. Standing

Counsels.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA [Physical Hearing/Hybrid Hearing (as per request)] RAJIV SHAKDHER, J. (ORAL): CM APPL. 48825/2023 1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions. W.P.(C) 12368/2023 & CM Appl. 48824/2023 [Application filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking interim relief] 2. Issue notice. 2.1 Mr Vipul Agrawal, learned senior standing counsel, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents/revenue. 3. Given the directions that we intend to pass, Mr Agrawal says that he does not wish to file a counter-affidavit in the matter, and he will argue the case based on the record presently available with the court. Digitally Signed By:VAISHALI CHAUHAN Signing Date:11.10.2023 14:13:40 Signature Not Verified

W.P.(C) 12368/2023

Page 2 of 3

4.

Via this writ petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge the order dated 25.03.2023 passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short, “Act”] and consequent notice of even date, i.e, 25.03.2023, issued under Section 148 of the Act. 5. The impugned order and notice concern Assessment Year (AY) 2016-17. 6. A perusal of the notice dated 24.02.2023 issued under Section 148A(b) of the Act discloses that the allegations made qua the petitioner is that she sold the subject property and received consideration against the sale, which was not disclosed. 7. According to the respondents/revenue, the consideration received by the petitioner was Rs.1,52,50,000/-. 8. The aforementioned notice also discloses that this information was obtained by the respondent/revenue via the Non Filing Monitoring (NMS). 9. Based on this allegation, the petitioner was directed to file a reply on or before 06.03.2023. It appears that the petitioner sought accommodation via a request made on 06.03.2023 and accordingly, she was granted further time to file a response, albeit, by 15.03.2023. 10. The petitioner claims that a reply dated 14.03.2023 was uploaded on the designated portal on 15.03.2023. Although the petitioner has failed to place on record any material to back its claims, Mr Agrawal says that he has obtained instructions that the reply of the petitioner was available on the designated portal, on the date set forth hereinabove. 11. A perusal of the impugned order dated 24.03.2023 passed under Section 148A(d) of the Act shows that the Assessing Officer (AO) has proceeded on the basis that no response was filed by the petitioner, which Digitally Signed By:VAISHALI CHAUHAN Signing Date:11.10.2023 14:13:40 Signature Not Verified

W.P.(C) 12368/2023

Page 3 of 3

according to the instruction received by Mr Agrawal, is not correct. 12. Therefore, in our opinion, the principles of natural justice have been violated as submitted by Ms Shurbhi Chandra, advocate, who appears on behalf of the petitioner. 13. Thus, according to us, the best way forward would be to set aside the impugned order and notice. 14. It is ordered accordingly. 15. Liberty is, however, given to the AO to pass a fresh order, after taking into account the reply filed by the petitioner. Furthermore, the AO will also accord a personal hearing to the petitioner and/or her authorised representative. For this purpose, the AO will issue a notice to the petitioner. 16. As is evident, we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case; the AO will be free to decide the matter on merits, having regard to the reply and submissions made in support of the petitioner’s case. 17. The writ petition is disposed of, in the aforesaid terms. 17.1 Consequently, pending application shall stand closed. 18. Parties will act based on the digitally signed copy of the order.

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J.

GIRISH KATHPALIA, J. SEPTEMBER 20, 2023/RY

Click here to check corrigendum, if any

Digitally Signed By:VAISHALI CHAUHAN Signing Date:11.10.2023 14:13:40 Signature Not Verified

More judgments on Section 148A(d)

All 544 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148A(d) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →