Mr. Upendra Prasad V. Union of India through the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, District Ranchi and The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-cum-Assessing Officer, Circle-2, Ranchi and Valuation Officer, Department of Income Tax, District Ranchi

WPC/1614/2020

AI Insights

The petitioner, Mr. Upendra Prasad, approached the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi seeking multiple reliefs related to various orders and notices issued under different sections of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The primary concern raised was regarding the procedural validity and jurisdictional authority under which these orders and notices were issued. The petitioner specifically challenged the delay and the lack of proper jurisdiction in the issuance of these orders. However, during the proceedings, the focus shifted to the disposal of a stay petition that had been pending since February 2020. The counsel for the petitioner and the respondents agreed to resolve the matter based on the prompt disposal of this stay petition by the relevant authority.

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 679683 (HC-JHARKHAND)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 17-12-2020
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: AMRITA SINHA
• Assessee Lawyers: PRASHANT PALLAV
• Keywords: Assessment Order; Jurisdiction; Quashing of order; Stay Petition; Time barred; Valuation Officer
• Section: 147; 148; 142A; 142A(6)

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(T) No. 1614 of 2020 Mr. Upendra Prasad --- --- Petitioner Versus 1. Union of India through the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, District Ranchi 2. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-cum-Assessing Officer, Circle-2, Ranchi 3. Valuation Officer, Department of Income Tax, District Ranchi --- --- Respondents --- CORAM: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Anubha Rawat Choudhary Through : Video Conferencing --- For the Petitioner : Mr. Prashant Pallav, Advocate For the Respondents : Ms. Amrita Sinha, Advocate --- 06/17.12.2020 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Prashant Pallav and Ms. Amrita Sinha for the Income Tax Department. 2. Petitioner approached this Court for a number of reliefs as under: “a. For the issuance of an appropriate writ(s), order(s) or direction(s) for the quashing of the order dated 18th of September 2019 (Annexure-12) issued under Section 142A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as the same is time-barred and hit by the limitation as prescribed under Section 142A(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the same is also beyond the jurisdiction of the valuation officer as the valuation report was made outside the scope of reference under Section 142A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. b. For the issuance of an appropriate writ(s), order(s) or direction(s) for the quashing of the notice bearing number ITBA/AST/S/148/2018- 19/1012873162(1) dated 8th of October 2018 (Annexure-2) sent under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as the same has been issued without proper jurisdiction and sanction. c. For the issuance of an appropriate writ(s), order(s) or direction(s) of the order passed under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 vide order dated 27th of December 2019 is passed without assigning proper ‘reason to believe’, the ‘sanction note’, or without passing any order on the objection(s) as raised by the Petitioner. d. For the issuance of an appropriate writ(s), order(s) or direction(s) to stay the operation of the impugned demand notice issued vide letter(s) bearing number ITBA/COM/F/17/2019-20/1025000229(1) dated 11th of February 2020 (Annexure-16) and Letter bearing number ITBA/COM/F/17/2019-20/1025157776(1) dated 13th of February 2020 (Annexure-16) by the respondent department during the pendency of the appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), Ranchi. e. For the issuance of such other writ(s), order(s), or direction(s) as this Hon’ble Court may think just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case doing conscionable justice to the petitioner.” But, learned counsel for the petitioner has confined himself to the prayer relating to issuance of an appropriate direction upon the respondent no. 2 for disposal of the stay petition which is pending before the respondent no. 2 since February, 2020. 3. On the previous date, taking note of the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms. Amrita Sinha representing the respondent department was allowed short time to obtain instruction in the matter. Today, on instruction, she submits that stay application (Annexure-15) shall be disposed of within a period of two weeks from today. Petitioner should cooperate in the matter. She submits that the rest of the prayers are not fit to be entertained in writ jurisdiction as the petitioner has already preferred an appeal against the order of assessment passed under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the writ petition may be disposed of in the light of the statements made by learned counsel for the department to the limited prayer concerning the disposal of the stay petition. 5. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties and in that view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of on the understanding that the stay petition preferred by the petitioner shall be disposed of by the respondent no. 2/competent authority within a period of two weeks from today. Petitioner should cooperate in the matter. Let it be made clear that we have not gone into the merits of case. (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Binit/Pankaj "