SMT. ANJU JHUNJHUNWALA vs. UNION OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF FINANCE DEPPTT. OF REVENUE AND 3 OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
WTAX/1398/2019HC AllahabadUPHC01250140201902 January 20204 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court, while acknowledging the pending statutory appeal before the ITAT, chose not to pass any order in the writ petition that could prejudice either party. The Court allowed the petitioner's application to amend the prayer of the writ petition. The primary decision was to direct the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Circuit Bench at Varanasi, to hear and dispose of the pending statutory appeal filed by the petitioner as expeditiously as possible, preferably within two months but not later than three months from the date of communication of the order. The Tribunal was also directed to consider the contentions of the writ petitioner while disposing of the appeal. Both parties were cautioned against seeking unnecessary adjournments, and the Tribunal was directed not to grant them unless exigencies demanded.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Smt. Anju Jhunjhunwala, a businesswoman and former director of a company undergoing insolvency, filed a writ petition challenging an order of assessment dated December 30, 2016, which was proposed to be revised by the Revenue through a show cause notice dated February 25, 2019, under section 263 of the Income Tax Act. Subsequently, the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Varanasi, issued an order on March 22, 2019, cancelling the original assessment order. This order of the Principal Commissioner is under challenge before the statutory appellate tribunal at Varanasi. The petitioner had also sought an amendment to her writ petition's prayer to suspend the operation of the assessment order and demand, as her statutory appeal was pending adjudication.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable in light of the pending statutory appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT)? (Question of law and fact, implicitly concerning the jurisdiction of the writ court when alternative remedies are available). Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that her statutory right of appeal had become illusory and otiose due to the circumstances, implying a need for intervention by the writ court. The petitioner also sought to raise contentions before the ITAT that were to be considered by the Tribunal. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the Revenue in response to the writ petition or the amendment application. The Revenue was represented by Standing Counsel.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 263

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Court No. - 7 Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 1398 of 2019 Petitioner :- Smt. Anju Jhunjhunwala Respondent :- Union Of India, Ministry Of Finance Depptt. Of Revenue And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Abhinav Mehrotra Counsel for Respondent :- S.S.C.. Hon'ble Biswanath Somadder,J. Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J. This writ petition has been taken out by one Smt. Anju Jhunjhunwala, who claims to be a business woman and a serving Director of a Company M/s Jhunjhunwal Gases Pvt. Ltd. as well as an Ex-Director of a Private Limited Company, which is presently undergoing insolvency proceeding. The subject matter of challenge has its genesis in an order of assessment dated 30th December, 2016, read with a show cause notice dated 25th February, 2019, issued under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, whereby the Revenue proposed to revise the assessment order dated 30th December, 2016. It further appears that pursuant to the issuance of the said show cause notice dated 25th February, 2019, an order dated 22nd March, 2019, was issued by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Varanasi, whereby the original assessment order dated 30th December, 2016, stood cancelled. The order passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Varanasi, dated 22nd March, 2019, under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, is now a matter of challenge before the statutory appellate tribunal

-2- at Varanasi. In an order passed by us earlier today, we have allowed the petitioner’s civil miscellaneous application by permitting the writ petitioner to cause the following amendment in the prayer portion of the writ petition:- “To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of MANDAMUS calling for the Record of proceedings of Assessment and thereafter to suspend the operation and implementation of Order of Assessment – Undated [claimed by Revenue to be made on 20.12.2016], issued by Respondent no. 4 including demand raised in consequence to such assessment, since the Income Tax Appeal of the Petitioner is awaiting adjudication before the Ld. ITAT. The Statutory Right of Appeal bestowed upon the Petitioner has been rendered rather illusionary and otiose in the present circumstance” There are several issues which have been raised before us all of which are stated in the grounds of the writ petition. In order to avoid prolixity, we refrain from reproducing the same since we do not wish to pass any order in the instant writ petition which could cause prejudice to either of the parties in respect of the pending statutory appeal at Varanasi. We are, however, of the view that the statutory appeal is required to be heard out and dispose of as expeditiously as possible, considering the facts and circumstance of the instant case. We, therefore, dispose of the writ petition with a direction upon the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Circuit Bench at

-3- Varanasi, to hear out and dispose of the pending statutory appeal filed by the writ petitioner herein as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of two months but not later than three months from date of communication of a photostat certified copy of this order. While disposing of the statutory appeal, the learned Tribunal shall take into consideration the contention of the writ petitioner, as sought to be raised before us. We wish to make it clear that it will not be open either to the writ petitioner or to the Revenue to seek unnecessary adjournments before the learned Tribunal and the learned Tribunal shall not grant any such adjournment, unless of course, exigency so demands. Order Date :- 03.01.2020 Deepak/Dhananjai (Biswanath Somadder, J.) (Ajay Bhanot, J.)

Court No. - 7 In Re: Civil Misc. Application No. Nill of 2020 Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 1398 of 2019 Petitioner :- Smt. Anju Jhunjhunwala Respondent :- Union Of India, Ministry Of Finance Depptt. Of Revenue And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Abhinav Mehrotra Counsel for Respondent :- S.S.C. Hon'ble Biswanath Somadder,J. Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J. Considering the averments made in the instant miscellaneous application and upon hearing the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the parties, we allow the application by an order in terms of prayer “ i ”. Let the supplementary affidavit annexed to the application be also taken on record. Order Date :- 03.01.2020 Deepak/Dhananjai (Biswanath Somadder, J.) (Ajay Bhanot, J.)

More judgments on Section 263

All 13,616 judgments and leading authorities on Section 263 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →