ISHMEET KAUR V. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND ANOTHER

CWP/29603/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Ishmeet Kaur, the petitioner, against the Income Tax Officer, concerning notices issued for the Assessment Years 2019-20, 2020-21, and 2021-22. The petitioner challenged the notices under section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, arguing that there was no incriminating evidence to justify the notices. The court, after reviewing the submissions and the notices, concluded that there was no cause of action for the petitioner to file a petition, as the notices did not indicate any proceedings under section 153C of the Act. The court dismissed the petition, allowing the petitioner to file a reply to the notice and take further actions as deemed necessary under the Act.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 674214 (HC-MISC)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 29-10-2024
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: YOGESH PUTNEY
• Assessee Lawyers: NIKHIL GOYAL
• Keywords: Assessment Year; Cause of Action; Income Tax; Incriminating Evidence; Notice
• Section: 142(1); 153C

Judgement Text

"CWP-29603-2024 143 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT ISHMEET KAUR INCOME TAX OFFICER AND CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE Present: Mr Mr. Yogesh Putney, for the SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J.(Oral) 1. Prima facie (for short ‘AO’) that there is no incriminating evidence available with the department for Assessment Year 2019-20, 2020 arising in favour of the petitioner to file any petition. 2. So far as the notice issued under section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to the petitioner the same does not in any manner reflect proceedings under section 153C of the Act to be recorded. to the said notice. 2024 (O&M) Page 1 of 2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ISHMEET KAUR Vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND ANOTHER **** HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH **** Mr. Nikhil Goyal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Yogesh Putney, Sr. Standing Counsel for the respondents/Revenue. **** SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J.(Oral) Prima facie keeping in view the observations of the Assessing Officer (for short ‘AO’) that there is no incriminating evidence available with the department for Assessment Year 20, 2020-21 and 2021-22, we do not find any cause of action arising in favour of the petitioner to file any petition. So far as the notice issued under section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to the petitioner for the Assessment Year the same does not in any manner reflect proceedings under section 153C of the Act to be recorded. The petitioner can always file a reply to the said notice. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-29603-2024 (O&M) Date of Decision: 29.10.2024 . . . . Petitioner . . . . Respondents HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA SANJAY VASHISTH , Advocate for the petitioner. Sr. Standing Counsel SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J.(Oral) view the observations of the Assessing Officer (for short ‘AO’) that there is no incriminating evidence available with the department for Assessment Year 2015-16, 2016-17, 2018-19, 22, we do not find any cause of action arising in favour of the petitioner to file any petition. So far as the notice issued under section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, for the Assessment Year 2021-22 is concerned, the same does not in any manner reflect proceedings under section The petitioner can always file a reply (O&M) .2024 Petitioner . . . . Respondents view the observations of the Assessing Officer (for short ‘AO’) that there is no incriminating evidence available with 19, 22, we do not find any cause of action So far as the notice issued under section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, is concerned, the same does not in any manner reflect proceedings under section The petitioner can always file a reply MOHIT GOYAL 2024.11.04 15:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-29603-2024 3. No case is made out for interference as no cause of stage. 4. Writ Petition stands dismissed accordingly. 5. The petitioner is always free to take up his objections before the concerned authority and even file an appeal as per the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961. October 29, 2024 Mohit goyal 1. Whether speaking/reasoned? 2. Whether reportable? 2024 (O&M) Page 2 of 2 No case is made out for interference as no cause of Writ Petition stands dismissed accordingly. The petitioner is always free to take up his objections before the concerned authority and even file an appeal as per the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961. (SANJEEV PRAKASH , 2024 1. Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No 2. Whether reportable? Yes/No No case is made out for interference as no cause of action arises at this Writ Petition stands dismissed accordingly. The petitioner is always free to take up his objections before the concerned authority and even file an appeal as per the provisions of the SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA) JUDGE (SANJAY VASHISTH) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No action arises at this The petitioner is always free to take up his objections before the concerned authority and even file an appeal as per the provisions of the MOHIT GOYAL 2024.11.04 15:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document "