Kanodia Cement Limited V. Union of India and others

WTAX/47/2019

AI Insights

The case involves Kanodia Cement Limited challenging a notice and subsequent orders issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Assessing Officer. The petitioner argued that the Assessing Officer had wrongly assumed jurisdiction to issue the notice. The High Court decided not to delve into the merits of the case at this stage and instead directed the petitioner to pursue the appellate remedy available under the Act. The court also considered the petitioner's request for an extension of the stay on recovery of the demand, which was granted pending the decision on the stay application filed with the appeal.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 803212 (HC-ALLAHABAD)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 04-01-2023
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: ANANT TIWARI; GAURAV MAHAJAN
• Assessee Lawyers: NIKHIL AGRAWAL
• Keywords: Appeal; Interim relief; Jurisdiction; Notice; Objections; Reassessment; Stay
• Section: 148

Judgement Text

" HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD *** ORDER 1. Challenge in the present petition is to the notice dated March 29, 2018 issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act') and order dated December 20, 2018 rejecting the objections filed by the petitioner to the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act and the order of reassessment dated December 28, 2018 passed in pursuance to the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the case in hand the Assessing Officer had wrongly assumed jurisdiction to issue notice under Section 148 of the Act. In support, he sought to refer to number of documents including the notices issued to the parties from whom, according to the Department, certain accommodation entries had been taken by the petitioner. Assessment orders passed in their cases. Chief Justice's Court Serial No. 3019 WRIT TAX No. - 47 of 2019 Through :- Mr. Nikhil Agrawal, Advocate v/s Through :- Mr. Anant Kumar Tiwari, Central Government Counsel for respondent No. 1 Mr. Gaurav Mahajan, Advocate for respondents No. 2 to 5 CORAM : HON'BLE RAJESH BINDAL, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE J.J. MUNIR, JUDGE Kanodia Cement Limited .....Petitioner Union of India and others .....Respondents 3. In our opinion, once the assessment has been framed, all these factual aspects in detail can very well be gone into before the Appellate Authority under the Act. Hence, we relegate the petitioner to avail of its remedy of appeal. 4. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as the writ petition remained pending in this Court, he may be given four weeks' time to file the appeal along with an application for interim relief. As during the pendency of the writ petition before this Court, amount of recovery was stayed, the same may be extended till the stay application filed along with appeal is decided . Thereafter, the petitioner will abide by whatever directions are issued by the Appellate Authority or any other competent Authority under the Act. 5. To the aforesaid prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel appearing for the Revenue does not have any objection. 6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we dispose of the writ petition relegating the petitioner to avail of its remedy of appeal against the impugned order of reassessment. In case the appeal is filed on or before February 10, 2023, the same shall not be dismissed on account of delay and shall be considered on merits. 7. Needless to add that we have not examined the issues raised by the writ petitioner on merits. He shall be at liberty to raise all the issues before the Appellate Authority. 8. As during the pendency of the writ petition, recovery of the impugned demand from the petitioner was stayed, the respondents are restrained from enforcing the recovery till such time the stay application 2 WTAX No. 47 of 2019 filed along with appeal is decided, in case filed within the time stated aforesaid. Thereafter, the petitioner shall be abide by any order passed by the Appellate Authority or any other competent Authority under the Act. Allahabad 04.01.2023 Deepak/Ishan Whether the order is speaking : Yes/No Whether the order is reportable : Yes/No 3 WTAX No. 47 of 2019 (J.J. Munir) Judge (Rajesh Bindal) Chief Justice Digitally signed by :- DEEPAK KUMAR PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad "