NARESH KUMAR ISRANI V. UNION OF INDIA

WPT/185/2022

AI Insights

The case involves a writ petition filed by Naresh Kumar Israni challenging the issuance of a notice under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2018-2019. The petitioner argued that the notice provided only six days to respond, whereas the Act mandates a minimum of seven days. The respondents contended that sufficient opportunity was provided. The court found that the notice was issued in violation of Section 148A(b) as it did not comply with the statutory requirement of providing at least seven days for the petitioner to respond.

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 685900 (HC-CHHATTISGARH)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 21-07-2022
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: RAMAKANT MISHRA; NAUSHINA ALI
• Assessee Lawyers: SIDDHARTH DUBEY; HARSHWARDHAN PARGANIHA
• Keywords: Assessment Year; Income Tax; Legal compliance; Notice; Show cause notice
• Section: 148; 148A(b)

Judgement Text

"NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPT No. 185 of 2022 • Naresh Kumar Israni S/o Ludan Mal Israni, Aged About 55 Years R/o 1717, Mahavir Nagar New Puraina, Raipur, Raipur 492001, Chhattisgarh India. ---- Petitioner Versus 1. Union Of India Through Secretary Ministry Of Finance, Department Of Revenue, North Block, New Delhi- 110001, India. 2. Income Tax Officer Ward 1(2), Raipur Office Of The Income Tax Officer Ward 1(2), Raipur, Central Revenue Building Civil Lines, Raipur, Chhattisgarh- 492001, India. 3. Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax/ Commissioner Of Income Tax, Raipur- 1 Office Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax/ Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Raipur-1, Central Revenue Building Civil Lines, Raipur Chhattisgarh- 492001, India. ---- Respondents ------ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For petitioner : Mr. Siddharth Dubey with Mr. Harshwardhan Parganiha, Advocates. For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Ramakant Mishra, Asst. S.G. For respondents No.2 and 3 ; Mrs. Naushina Afrin Ali, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas. Order on Board (21-07-2022) 1. The petitioner has preferred the instant writ petition challenging the issuance of notice dated 20-3-2022 under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( for short, “the Act, 1961”) for the assessment year 2018- 2019 by which six days’ time was given to the petitioner to submit reply to the said show cause notice. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the said notice was issued on 20-3-2022 whereas the petitioner was directed to file reply on or before 26-3-2022. He would further submit that as per the provisions of Section 148A(b), at least seven days time should be given to the assessee. He would refer to Section 148A (b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which reads as under: 2 “148A (b) provide an opportunity of being heard to the assessee, with the prior approval of specified authority, by serving upon him a notice to show cause within such time, as may be specified in the notice, being not less than seven days and but not exceeding thirty days from the date on which such notice is issued, or such time, as may be extended by him on the basis of an application in this behalf, as to why a notice under Section 148 should not be issued on the basis of information which suggests that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment his case for the relevant assessment year and results of enquiry conducted, if any, as per clause (a)”. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that as per Section 148A(b) of the Act, reply should be given not less than seven days wherein in the present case assessee was given only six days time which is, prima facie, not inconformity with the provisions of the Act, 1961 and there is no difficulty for giving an opportunity to the assessee to submit reply to the show cause notice within seven days and fresh notice may be issued to the assessee giving him time schedule prescribed under Section 148 of the Act. He would further submit that since opportunity was not given to the assessee, therefore, the notice dated 20-3-2022 (Annexure P/2) issued under Section 148A(b) of the Act,1961 and the order dated 30-3-2022 (Annexure P/3) deserve to be quashed and notice issued under section 148 of the Act, has lost its significance as no proper opportunity before issuance of notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act, therefoer, the provisions of Section 148A(b) of the Act, 1961 will come into operation only when valid notice is issued to the assessee, time may be extended to the petitioner. 3 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Revenue would submit that sufficient opportunity has been granted to the petitioner, therefore, he cannot make a ground to assail the impugned notice or subsequent order passed by the authority and the order has been passed in conformity with law, therefore, she prays for dismissal of the writ petition. 5. From bare perusal of the aforesaid provisions of the Act, 1961, it is very clear that not less seven days time is mandatory for giving reply to the assessee for initiation of proceeding under Section 148 of the Act for said assessment as provided under Section 148 of the Act. 6. In the present case, there is violation of Section 148A(b) of the Act, 1961, therefore, notice dated 20-3-2022 (Annexure P/2) issued under Section 148A(b) of the Act,1961 and the order dated 30-3-2022 (Annexure P/3) are quashed. The assessing authority is directed to issue fresh notice in accordance with the provisions of Section 148(b) of the Act, 1961 giving sufficient opportunity to the petitioner to file reply and thereafter pass a reasoned order, in accordance with the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 7. With the aforesaid observation, the instant writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Vyas) JUDGE Raju "