ANURADHA WADHWA vs. THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND 2 OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
WTAX/746/2022HC AllahabadUPHC01076190202218 May 20221 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The Tribunal held that the writ petition was not maintainable. It found that the petitioner's contention that the order under Section 263 was passed without an opportunity of hearing was factually incorrect. The judgment noted that a show cause notice was issued on 02.11.2020, the petitioner sought an adjournment, and subsequently filed a written reply on 22.12.2020. Therefore, it could not be said that the order was passed without affording an opportunity of hearing. Furthermore, the Tribunal observed that the order under Section 263 is appealable under Section 253(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the subsequent assessment order dated 29.03.2022 is appealable under Section 246A of the Act. Given the availability of statutory remedies and the lack of grounds to entertain a writ petition, the Tribunal dismissed the writ petition, leaving it open for the petitioner to avail the statutory remedy of appeal.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Anuradha Wadhwa, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 13.01.2021 passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Respondent No. 1) under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. This order had cancelled an earlier assessment order dated 25.07.2018 passed under Section 143(3). The petitioner contended that the Section 263 order was passed without providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing. The writ petition was filed on 09.05.2022, approximately 16 months after the impugned order. The judgment notes that a show cause notice was issued on 02.11.2020, with a compliance date of 09.11.2020, and the petitioner subsequently sought adjournment and filed a written reply on 22.12.2020. The judgment also mentions that a subsequent assessment order for Assessment Year 2016-17 was passed on 29.03.2022 under Section 143(3) read with Sections 263 and 144B, which is not under challenge.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the impugned order dated 13.01.2021 passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, cancelling the assessment order dated 25.07.2018, was passed without affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, as mandated by Section 263 of the Act? Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the order under Section 263 was passed without giving her a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the revenue. However, it notes the procedural steps taken, implying the revenue's position that due process was followed.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 263,Section 143(3),Section 144B,Section 253(1)(c),Section 246A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Court No. - 3 Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 746 of 2022 Petitioner :- Anuradha Wadhwa Respondent :- The Pr Commissioner Of Income Tax And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajan Upadhyay,Utkarsh Malviya Counsel for Respondent :- Gaurav Mahajan Hon'ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani,J. Hon'ble Jayant Banerji,J. Heard Sri Utkarsh Malviya, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ashish Agarwal, learned counsel for the respondent Income Tax Department. This writ petition has been filed praying for the following relief : (a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 13.01.2021 passed by the Respondent No.1 u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 cancelling the assessment order dated 25.07.2018 passed u/s 143 (3) being erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue without giving reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, as mandated in Section 263 of the Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 13.01.2021, under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Ghaziabad, without affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. The impugned order under Section 263 of the Act, 1961 was passed about 16 months ago. The writ petition has been presented on 09.05.2022 to challenge the aforesaid order. Perusal of the aforesaid impugned order shows that a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 02.11.2020 fixing the date of compliance on 09.11.2020. The petitioner sought adjournment and thereafter filed her written reply on 22.12.2020. Thus, it can not be said that the impugned order has been passed without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. That apart, after the impugned order under Section 263 of the Act, 1961 was passed the Assessing Authority issued notices to the petitioner and petitioner participated in proceedings and thereafter an assessment order under Section 143(3) readwith Section 263 and Section 144 B of the Act, 1961 for the Assessment Year 2016-17 was passed on 29.03.2022. This Assessment order is also not under challenge in the present writ petition. Apart from above, the order under Section 263 is appealable under Section 253(1)(c) of the Act, 1961. The Assessment Order dated 29.03.2022 is appealable under Section 246 A of the Act 1961. For the reasons aforestated, we do not find any good reason to entertain this writ petition. Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed leaving it open for the petitioner to avail statutory remedy of appeal, if so advised. Order Date :- 19.5.2022/vkg Digitally signed by VINOD KUMAR GOSWAMI Date: 2022.05.20 09:49:36 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

More judgments on Section 263

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →