Nitin Sankhla V. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle 1 (1), Bhiulai and Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax Range 1, Bhilai and National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi

WPT/85/2022

AI Insights

The case involves a writ petition filed by Nitin Sankhla challenging the issuance of a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner argued that his objections to the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer for issuing the notice were not considered by the respondent authorities, contrary to the Supreme Court's decision in GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd vs. Income Tax Officer. During the pendency of the writ petition, the respondents finalized the assessment and issued a final assessment order. Consequently, the petitioner, acknowledging the changed circumstances, withdrew the petition with the intention to challenge the final assessment order separately.

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 796884 (HC-CHHATTISGARH)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 04-04-2022
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd Vs Income Tax Officer and others (2003) 1 SCC 72
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: AJAY KUMRANI
• Assessee Lawyers: APURV GOYAL
• Keywords: Assessment; Income Tax; Notice under section 148; Objection Not Considered; Writ petition
• Section: 148; 246

Judgement Text

"NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPT No. 85 of 2022 • Nitin Sankhla S/o Shri Umed Chand Sankhla, Aged About 35 Years R/o 1st Floor, Navkar Bullion, Jawahar Chowk, Above Navin Jewewllers, Durg, Chhattisgarh. 491001. ---- Petitioner Versus 1. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle 1 (1), Bhiulai, Income Tax Office, 32/32 Bunglows, Bhilai, Chhattisgarh. 490001 2. Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax Range 1, Bhilai, Income Tax Officer, 32/32 Bunglows, Bhilai, Chhatisgarh 490001 3. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi Through Additional/joint/deputy/assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax/income Tax Officer, Income Tax Department, North Block, New Delhi 110001 ---- Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For Petitioner : Shri Apurv Goyal, Advocate For Respondent/State : Shri Ajay Kumrani, Advocate ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order on Board 04.04.2022 1. Shri Apurv Goyal, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner in this Writ petition has challenged issuance of notice under Section 148 of Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short,’IT Act’). He submits that apart from other grounds raised in this writ petition, one of the grounds raised by petitioner is that objection raised by petitioner before Assessing Officer upon receiving the reasons recorded by Assessing Officer for issuance notice was not considered by respondent authorities while considering objections raised by petitioner. He submits that as per law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd Vs Income Tax Officer and others reported in (2003) 1 SCC 72, Hon’ble Supreme Court observed the procedure to be adopted by respondent authority after issuance of notice under Section 148 of the IT Act. After receiving notice under Section 148 of the IT Act, petitioner submitted an application demanding reasons recorded by Assessing Wpt 85 of 2022 2 Officer for initiating proceedings for issuance of notice under Section 148 of the IT Act. Based on application, respondent authorities supplied copy of reasons recorded by Assessing Officer and thereafter, petitioner submitted objection on 14.02.2022. Respondent authorities while considering objections raised by petitioner recorded that petitioner failed to furnish objections to reasons recorded by Assessing Officer, which is not correct. Petitioner has placed on record copy of acknowledgment of submission of his objection before the authority on the reasons recorded by Assessing Officer. Respondent authorities acted in arbitrary manner and contrary to observations in case of GKN Driveshafts (supra), hence, writ petition was filed to interdict with issuance of notice under Section 148 of the IT Act. 2. Shri Ajay Kumarrani, learned counsel for respondent-1 would submit that during pendency of this writ petition, respondent parties have finalized assessment and final assessment order has already been issued. The petitioner is having efficacious statutory remedy of appeal under Section 246 of the Act of 1961. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that in view of changed circumstances, he may be permitted to withdraw this petition with liberty to challenge the final assessment order passed against petitioner. 4. In view of above submission of learned counsel for the petitioner, Writ Petition is dismissed as withdrawn with aforesaid liberty. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) JUDGE padma "