Naubind Singh V. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-I,

CWJC/9288/2023

AI Insights

The case involves Naubind Singh, the petitioner, who challenged an order passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Income Tax authorities in Patna. The petitioner contended that his reply to the initial notice was not considered and that he was not communicated about the extension of time for filing a reply. The court examined the procedural history, including the issuance of notices and the filing of replies, and compared the case with a precedent from the Delhi High Court. Ultimately, the court dismissed the writ petition, allowing the petitioner to address his concerns in response to the forthcoming notice under Section 148.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 671154 (HC-PATNA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 11-09-2024
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Meenu Chaufla vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 49(1), Delhi [W.P. (C) no. 7854 of 2022]
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: ARCHANA SINHA
• Assessee Lawyers: CHIRANJIVA RANJAN
• Keywords: Adjournment; Income Tax; Notice; Non-consideration of reply
• Section: 148; 148A(d)

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9288 of 2023 ====================================================== Naubind Singh Son of Late Dallu Singh, Resident of Village- Simira, Police Station- Parsa Bazar, District- Patna- 8004453. ... ... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Bihar Revenue Building, Virchand Patel Marg, Baily Road, Patna-800001. 2. The Income Tax Officer, Ward - 5(1), Patna. Lok Nayak Jai Prakash Building, New Dakbanglow, Road, Patna-800001. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Chiranjiva Ranjan, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mrs.Archana Sinha @ Archana Shahi, Sr. Counsel ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) Date : 11-09-2024 The petitioner is aggrieved with Annexure- 5 order passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The specific contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner’s reply was not considered and later extension of the time for filing a reply, was never communicated to him. 3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner also relies on a judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of Meenu Chaufla vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 49(1), Delhi [W.P. (C) Patna High Court CWJC No.9288 of 2023 dt.11-09-2024 2/4 no. 7854 of 2022]. 4. The fact remains that the petitioner was issued with a notice under Section 148A(d) by Annexure-1 dated 13.03.2023. The petitioner was granted ten days time, that is up to 23.03.2023 for filing a reply. The petitioner filed an application for adjournment on 23.03.2023 seeking one month time or any appropriate time for filing the reply. The petitioner was issued with Annexure-3 notice granting him time up to 14.04.2023. 5. Learned Counsel further submits that the petitioner has not received Annexure- 3 notice; as stated in the writ petition. But the petitioner does not speak of the date on which he received Annexure-3, which has been produced along with the writ petition. Annexure-4 reply is said to have been filed on 22.04.2023, which is admitted by the department in the counter affidavit; but after the order was passed. 6. The decision relied on by the learned Counsel for the petitioner found that the Assessing Officer can suo moto provide up to thirty days period when assessee responds to the show cause notice, which period can also be extended and such period given to the assessee is excluded from computing the period of limitation, for issuance of notice under Section Patna High Court CWJC No.9288 of 2023 dt.11-09-2024 3/4 148A(d) of the Act. 7. In the cited decision of Meenu Chaufla (supra), the application of adjournment filed by the assessee was not rejected or responded to. The contention of the assessee was also that they had filed a reply on 27.03.2022 but the Online portal itself was closed by the respondents on 24.03.2022. Further, the assessee though could not upload the reply; submitted it through an e-mail addressed to the Assessing Officer. The impugned order was passed after the e-mail was received by the Assessing Officer. The non-consideration of the reply received was also found to have vitiated the order challenged therein. The instant case differs on facts distinctly. 8. The petitioner as has been noticed, submits that Annexure- 3 was never received by him but produced it along with the writ petition. Likewise, Annexure- 4 reply is said to have been filed on 22.04.2024, after the order was passed. The petitioner was granted time up to 14.04.2023 and the order was passed only on 21.04.2023. There is no question of any remand being made for the purpose of hearing. 9. We also notice that the order issued under Section 148A(d) of the Act is not conclusive since, now the petitioner will be issued with a notice under Section 148. Patna High Court CWJC No.9288 of 2023 dt.11-09-2024 4/4 10. The counter affidavit of the respondents indicates that a notice has already been issued under Section 148 on 21.04.2023. 11. The petitioner would be entitled to raise all contentions in reply to the said show cause notice, if the same has not been concluded till now. 12. The writ petition stands dismissed with the above liberty. Harsh/- (K. Vinod Chandran, CJ) ( Partha Sarthy, J) AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 13.09.2024 Transmission Date "