NISHANT GUPTA V. UNION OF INDIA AND 3 OTHERS

WTAX/848/2021

AI Insights

The case involves Nishant Gupta, the petitioner, who filed a writ petition against the Union of India and others, challenging an order dated 23.04.2022 as illegal and in violation of natural justice. The petitioner sought to quash this order and demanded a refund of money allegedly seized by the Revenue authorities. The respondents argued that the order in question was passed with the consent of the petitioner and that the petitioner's application regarding the seized money was pending and would be decided in accordance with the law. The court decided to dispose of the writ petition by directing the respondents to expedite the decision on the pending application.

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 724168 (HC-ALLAHABAD)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 04-04-2022
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: GAURAV MAHAJAN; PRAVEEN KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: ABHINAV MEHROTRA
• Keywords: Certiorari; Certiorari; Expeditious decision; Illegal seizure; Mandamus; Natural Justice; Refund
• Section: 127(1); 132A; 132B

Judgement Text

"Court No. - 3 Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 848 of 2021 Petitioner :- Nishant Gupta Respondent :- Union Of India And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Abhinav Mehrotra Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,Gaurav Mahajan,Praveen Kumar Hon'ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani,J. Hon'ble Jayant Banerji,J. Heard Sri Abhinav Mehrotra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Praveen Kumar, learned counsel for the Income Tax Department. This writ petition has been filed praying for the following relief:- (1) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 23.04.2022 (Annexure No.6 to the writ petition) as the same is patently illegal and bad in law. The order is cryptic, non-speaking and has been issued in gross violation to the principles of natural justice and is otherwise also unsustainable in law. (2) To issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus calling for the record of present proceedings; claimed by Revenue to be taken out in exercise of powers available to it under Section 132A of the Income Tax Act and thereafter the Hon'ble Court be further pleased to require Revenue to satisfy the Hon'ble Court that there existed honest bonafide reason to believe, attributable to information in possession of relevant authorities, that the situations mentioned in clause (a) to (d) under Section 132A(1) of the Income Tax Act (separately or jointly) stands satisfied in the case of petitioner/cash belonging to petitioner. (3) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding Revenue authorities to forthwith refund to petitioner money, illegally seized by them, together with appropriate interest. Learned counsel for the respondents states on instructions that order dated 15.03.2022 under Section 127(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 has been passed by the competent authority, empowering DCIT, Central Circle, Bareilly to exercise power of the assessing officer. The aforesaid order dated 15.03.2022, under Section 127(1) of the Act, 1961 has been passed with the consent of the petitioner. Thus, the relief No.1 as sought in the present writ petition does not survive. So far as relief Nos. 2 and 3 are concerned, we find that the petitioner has already moved application dated 23.04.2021, under Section 132B of the Act, 1961 before the respondent no.2, which is stated to be pending. Learned Standing Counsel for the respondents states that the aforesaid application of the petitioner shall be considered by the competent authorities in accordance with law and appropriate order shall be passed within time bound period under section 132B of the Act, 1961. In view of aforesaid, no useful purpose would be served to keep the writ petition pending and call for a counter affidavit. Therefore, with the consent of the learned counsels for the parties, this writ petition is disposed of, directing the respondents to decide the application of the petitioner dated 23.04.2021,under Section 132B of the Act, 1961 expeditiously, preferably within two months from the date of submission of a certified copy of this order. It is made clear that we have not expressed any opinion on merits of the case of the petitioner. Order Date :- 4.4.2022/T.S. Digitally signed by TRIBHUWAN SINGH Date: 2022.04.05 14:35:19 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad "