KRISHAN GOPAL vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE

PDF · subscribers
W.P.(C)/17195/2024HC DelhiDLHC01092041202412 December 2024Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA,HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The Delhi High Court held that it was not apposite to entertain the writ petition given the existence of a statutory remedy of appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The court dismissed the petition, disposing of it on the procedural ground of alternative remedy. However, the court clarified that all rights and contentions of the petitioner, including those relating to the issuance of necessary notices, were reserved. Furthermore, the court directed that if the petitioner files an appeal within two weeks from the date of the order, the appeal shall be considered without being influenced by any delay. The ratio decidendi is that writ jurisdiction should not be exercised when an equally efficacious alternative remedy is available, unless there are exceptional circumstances not present here.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Krishan Gopal, filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court challenging an Assessment Order dated 11.11.2024 passed under Section 147 read with Sections 144 and 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessment pertains to Assessment Year 2019-20, and a demand was raised under Section 156 of the Act. The respondent was the National Faceless Assessment Centre. The High Court noted that the petitioner has a statutory remedy of appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals).

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court should entertain a writ petition challenging an assessment order when a statutory remedy of appeal is available to the petitioner? (Question of law). Assessee's Contention: The petitioner challenged the assessment order, implicitly arguing for the High Court's intervention. The specific grounds raised in the writ petition, including the issuance of necessary notice, were reserved for future consideration. Revenue's Contention: The revenue, represented by the Senior Standing Counsel, did not explicitly record arguments in the judgment. However, the High Court's decision implies that the revenue's position, or at least the court's understanding of the procedural recourse, led to the dismissal of the writ petition.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144,Section 144B,Section 156

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

$~72 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 17195/2024 CM APPL. 73093/2024 CM APPL. 73094/2024

KRISHAN GOPAL

.....Petitioner

Through: Mr. Pulkit Verma, Advocate.

versus

NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE

.....Respondent Through: Mr. Vipur Agarwal, Senior Standing Counsel.

CORAM:

HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA

O R D E R %

12.12.2024 1. Petitioner has filed the present petition impugning the Assessment Order dated 11.11.2024 passed under Section 147 read with Section 144 and Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter Act). Petitioner also impugns demand raised under Section 156 of the Act in respect of the Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. Concededly, the petitioner has statutory remedy of an Appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (CIT (A)). 3. In view of the above, we do not consider it apposite to entertain the present petition. The petition is accordingly disposed of. 4. We, however, clarify that all rights and contentions of the petitioner raised in this writ petition including that the impugned order has been passed without issuance of the necessary notice, are reserved. 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 19/12/2024 at 13:08:42

5.

We also consider apposite to direct that if the petitioner files an appeal within a period of two weeks from today, the petitioner’s appeal shall be considered uninfluenced by the question of delay.

VIBHU BAKHRU, ACJ

TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J DECEMBER 12, 2024 KG

Click here to check corrigendum, if any 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 19/12/2024 at 13:08:42

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →