Peeyush Kumar Aggarwal V. ITO Ward 19 (1), Delhi

W.P.(C)/12173/2022

AI Insights

The case involves Peeyush Kumar Aggarwal, the petitioner, who challenged the notices and orders issued by the ITO Ward 19 (1), Delhi, under various sections of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the Assessment Year 2014-15. The petitioner argued that the notices provided incorrect information and did not allow sufficient time for response as mandated by the Act. The respondent contended that the notices were issued correctly and in accordance with the law. The court found that the petitioner's submissions were not considered in the order passed under Section 148A(d), leading to the setting aside of the order and notice.

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 799881 (HC-DELHI)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 26-08-2022
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Divya Capital One Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 7(1) Delhi & Anr. (2022) 445 ITR 436
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: PUNEET RAI; ADEEBA MUJAHID; NIKHIL JAIN
• Assessee Lawyers: SUMIT BATRA; MANISH KHURANA; KSHITIJ CHHABRA; SHIKAR VERMA
• Keywords: Assessment Year 2014-15; Exemption; Illegal notice; Income Tax; Notice; Stay
• Section: 148; 148A(b); 148A(d); 148A(c)

Judgement Text

"W.P.(C) 12173/2022 Page 1 of 3 $~9 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 12173/2022, CM APPL. 36417-18/2022 PEEYUSH KUMAR AGGARWAL ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Sumit K. Batra, Mr. Manish Khurana, Mr. Kshitij Chhabra & Mr. Shikar Verma, Advocates. versus ITO WARD 19 (1), DELHI ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Puneet Rai, Sr. Standing Counsel for Revenue with Ms. Adeeba Mujahid, Jr. Standing Counsel & Mr. Nikhil Jain, Advocate. % Date of Decision: 26th August, 2022 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA J U D G M E N T MANMOHAN, J (Oral): CM APPL. 36418/2022 (exemption) Exemptions allowed, subject to all just exceptions. Accordingly, these applications stand disposed of. W.P.(C) 12173/2022, CM APPL. 36417/2022 (for stay) 1. Present writ petition has been filed challenging the notice dated 27th July, 2022 issued under Section 148 of the amended Act, order dated 28th July, 2022 passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the This is a digitally signed Judgement. NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/003308 W.P.(C) 12173/2022 Page 2 of 3 Act’) and notices dated 15th July, 2022 and 26th May, 2022 issued under Section 148A(b) of the Act for the Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. Learned counsel for the Petitioner states that the Respondent provided materially incorrect information vide impugned notice dated 26th May, 2022 under Section 148A(b) of the Act. He states that another notice dated 15th July 2022 was issued by the Respondent under Section 148A(b) of the Act, supplying the correct list of entities with whom the Petitioner was alleged to have transacted. He states that therefore the latter notice was technically the first notice under section 148A(b) of the Act and at least seven days’ time for filing the reply should have been provided as per Section 148A(b) of the Act. He points out that Petitioner was afforded only three days’ time to file his reply. He also states that even though the same was filed on 16th July, 2022, yet the same was not considered. 3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further states that the Respondent has passed the impugned notice under Section 148 of the amended Act on 27th July, 2022, prior to adjudicating and passing the order under Section 148A(d) of the Act on 28th July, 2022 which is patently illegal. He emphasizes that the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act dated 27th July, 2022 does not bear a DIN number. 4. Issue notice. Mr. Puneet Rai, Sr. Standing Counsel for Revenue accepts notice. He states that the impugned notice under Section 148 of the Act dated 27th July, 2022 had actually been issued on 28th July, 2022 along with a forwarding letter. In support of his contention he refers to the notice itself issued under Section 148 of the Act inasmuch as it refers to an order passed under Section 148A(d) of the Act dated 28th July, 2022. This is a digitally signed Judgement. NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/003308 W.P.(C) 12173/2022 Page 3 of 3 5. Having perused the paper book, this Court finds that the contentions and submissions advanced by the Petitioner in its reply dated 16th July, 2022 have not been considered by the Assessing Officer while passing the order under Section 148A(d) of the Act. This Court in Divya Capital One Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 7(1) Delhi & Anr. (2022) 445 ITR 436 has held that “the mandate of Section 148A(c) has been violated as the impugned order under Section 148A(d) of the Act has been passed without considering the detailed reply filed by the Petitioner.” 6. Consequently, the impugned order passed under Section 148A(d) as well as notice issued under Section 148 of the Act are set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision in accordance with law within eight weeks. Needless to state that the rights and contentions of all the parties are left open. 7. Accordingly, the present writ petition along with pending application stands disposed of. MANMOHAN, J MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J AUGUST 26, 2022 msh/KA This is a digitally signed Judgement. NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/003308 "