Pooja Kumar V. Union of India and Others

CWP/11242/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Pooja Kumar against the Union of India and others, where the petitioner contested the decision of the Local Committee regarding a High-Pitch assessment under the Income Tax Act. The petitioner argued that they should have been given a hearing by the Local Committee, which was denied based on the SOP. The court referenced a previous decision (CWP-6536 Shammi Bansal) and upheld that the Local Committee's role was not to serve as an alternative forum for dispute resolution but to ensure fair and reasonable assessment orders. The court dismissed the writ petition, directing the petitioner to address their grievances at the appellate level.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 700015 (HC-CHANDIGARH)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 14-05-2024
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: M/s. Liberty Shammi Bansal Vs. Ld. Chairman Central Board of Direct Taxes, North Block, New Delhi and others
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: VAIBHAV GUPTA
• Assessee Lawyers: SANDEEP GOYAL
• Keywords: High pitch assessment; Income Tax; Revision application; Local Committee
• Section: 264; 264A

Judgement Text

" 138 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT POOJA KUMAR UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HON'BLE MR Present Mr. *** SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner has raised to the High Pitch Committee 2. Notice of motion. 3. Mr. Vaibhav Gupta, Advocate accepts respondents-Income Tax Department 4. We in CWP-6536 Shammi Bansal Block, New Delhi and others examining, the Local Committee has to submi order is to be treated as High petitioner has already been conveyed vide impugned order dated 02.11.2023 that the Local Committee did find their case to be of High hearing to the petitioner by the Local Committee, however, does not arise as there is no such provision laid down in the SOP. In view thereof, the claim of the petitioner that they should have been heard by the Local Committee is without ba IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP Date of Decision: POOJA KUMAR V/s. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Mr. Sandeep Goyal, Advocate for the petitioner. *** SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J. (Oral) Learned counsel for the petitioner has raised to the High Pitch Committee. Notice of motion. Mr. Vaibhav Gupta, Advocate accepts Income Tax Department. We find that we have already taken a decision on 18.03.2024 6536-2024, titled as M/s. Liberty Shammi Bansal Vs. Ld. Chairman Central Board of Direct Taxes, North Block, New Delhi and others and have held as under: “A perusal of the aforesaid provisions shows that while examining, the Local Committee has to submi order is to be treated as High-Pitch assessment or not. The petitioner has already been conveyed vide impugned order dated 02.11.2023 that the Local Committee did find their case to be of High-Pitch assessment. The question of giving an hearing to the petitioner by the Local Committee, however, does not arise as there is no such provision laid down in the SOP. In view thereof, the claim of the petitioner that they should have been heard by the Local Committee is without ba IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-11242-2024 (O&M) Date of Decision:14.05.2024 ……… Petitioner V/s. ….....Respondents SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA SUDEEPTI SHARMA , Advocate for the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has raised question relating Mr. Vaibhav Gupta, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of find that we have already taken a decision on 18.03.2024 Shoes Ltd. through Director Ld. Chairman Central Board of Direct Taxes, North and have held as under:- “A perusal of the aforesaid provisions shows that while examining, the Local Committee has to submit a report when the Pitch assessment or not. The petitioner has already been conveyed vide impugned order dated 02.11.2023 that the Local Committee did find their case to be of Pitch assessment. The question of giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner by the Local Committee, however, does not arise as there is no such provision laid down in the SOP. In view thereof, the claim of the petitioner that they should have been heard by the Local Committee is without basis. It may be Suresh Kumar 2024.05.16 09:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-11242-2024 (O& noticed that if the revised SOP issued on 23.04.2022, the Director, CBDT has also noticed that the purpose of constitution of Local Committee is to be effectively and efficiently dealt with the genuine grievance of the tax payers and help in environment where the assessment order has been passed in a fair and reasonable manner. It is to be noted that the Local Committee cannot be treated an alternative forum to dispute resolution/proceedings. Thus, an assessee cannot force that his case must be necessarily examined and decided by the Local Committee itself even if the Local Committee reached to the conclusion that it is not a case of High any reason to ente petitioner to raise all its arguments with regard to challenge the assessment order before the appellate authority. 5. In view of the above, the submission counsel for the petitioner is 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner revision application under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) of the revision petition was filed on 0 decided, although Section 264 application within a period of one year. It is submitted that on account of Section 264A and is not deciding the revision 7. Lea the petitioner should have filed an 2024 (O&M) Page 2 of 3 noticed that if the revised SOP issued on 23.04.2022, the Director, CBDT has also noticed that the purpose of constitution of Local Committee is to be effectively and efficiently dealt with the genuine grievance of the tax payers and help in environment where the assessment order has been passed in a fair and reasonable manner. It is to be noted that the Local Committee cannot be treated an alternative forum to dispute resolution/proceedings. Thus, an assessee cannot force that his case must be necessarily examined and decided by the Local Committee itself even if the Local Committee reached to the conclusion that it is not a case of High Having reached to the aforesaid conclusion, we do not find any reason to entertain this writ petition and leave it open to the petitioner to raise all its arguments with regard to challenge the assessment order before the appellate authority. Writ petition fails and is accordingly, dismissed.” In view of the above, the submission counsel for the petitioner is rejected. Learned counsel for the petitioner application under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) has been filed on 17.02.2023 of the revision petition was filed on 06.05.2023 although Section 264 of the Act provides within a period of one year. It is submitted that on account of Section 264A of the Act, the revisional authority is not opening any portal and is not deciding the revision application which has been filed. Learned counsel for the respondent the petitioner should have filed an appeal which he ch noticed that if the revised SOP issued on 23.04.2022, the Director, CBDT has also noticed that the purpose of constitution of Local Committee is to be effectively and efficiently dealt with the genuine grievance of the tax payers and help in supporting environment where the assessment order has been passed in a fair and reasonable manner. It is to be noted that the Local Committee cannot be treated an alternative forum to dispute resolution/proceedings. Thus, an assessee cannot force that his case must be necessarily examined and decided by the Local Committee itself even if the Local Committee reached to the conclusion that it is not a case of High-Pitch assessment. Having reached to the aforesaid conclusion, we do not find rtain this writ petition and leave it open to the petitioner to raise all its arguments with regard to challenge the assessment order before the appellate authority. Writ petition fails and is accordingly, dismissed.” In view of the above, the submissions made by the learned Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the application under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 has been filed on 17.02.2023 whereafter another copy .05.2023, but the same has not been provides for deciding the revision within a period of one year. It is submitted that on account of authority is not opening any portal which has been filed. rned counsel for the respondent-Income Tax submits that which he chosen not to avail, but application under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 Suresh Kumar 2024.05.16 09:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-11242-2024 (O& has filed a revision petition and the same would be decided in due course of time. 8. We since one year has been provided for deciding of the revision is expected from the concerned authorities to take decision. Merely on account of Section 264A deciding the revision without waiting for the opening of portal and deciding the cases virtually, it is expected that decided physically by giving an opportunity of hearing to the pet appear. The decision be two months henceforth. 9. The Writ Petition stand 10. All pending applications of accordingly. May 14, 2024 Ess Kay Whether speaking / reasoned Whether Reportable 2024 (O&M) Page 3 of 3 has filed a revision petition and the same would be decided in due course of We have heard learned counsel for the parties and since one year has been provided for deciding of the revision d from the concerned authorities to take decision. Merely on account of Section 264A of the Act, the authorities cannot shy awa deciding the revision applications which are already before them and without waiting for the opening of portal and deciding the cases virtually, it is expected that the pending revision application decided physically by giving an opportunity of hearing to the pet appear. The decision be taken by the concerned authorities henceforth. The Writ Petition stands disposed All pending applications filed in ingly. [SANJEEV , 2024 Whether speaking / reasoned : Whether Reportable : has filed a revision petition and the same would be decided in due course of have heard learned counsel for the parties and found that since one year has been provided for deciding of the revision applications, it d from the concerned authorities to take decision. Merely on , the authorities cannot shy away from which are already before them and without waiting for the opening of portal and deciding the cases virtually, it the pending revision applications filed by the petitioner be decided physically by giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner to by the concerned authorities within disposed off in the aforesaid terms. filed in this case shall stand disposed [SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA] JUDGE [SUDEEPTI SHARMA] JUDGE Yes / No Yes / No PRAKASH SHARMA] Suresh Kumar 2024.05.16 09:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document "