PREMVATI KANWAR V. UNION OF INDIA

WPT/191/2023

AI Insights

The case involves Premvati Kanwar, the petitioner, who challenged an order and a notice issued by the Income Tax authorities under Sections 148A(d) and 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, respectively. The petitioner argued that her reply, along with a valuation report from a registered valuer, was not considered by the Assessing Officer when passing the order under Section 148A(d). The respondents opposed the petitioner's claims. The court found that the Assessing Officer indeed failed to consider the petitioner's submissions and directed a fresh assessment.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 742288 (HC-CHHATTISGARH)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 26-07-2023
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: JYOTI SINGH; AJAY KUMRANI
• Assessee Lawyers: SIDDHARTH DUBEY
• Keywords: Assessment; Income Tax; Notice; Registered Valuer; Valuation report
• Section: 148; 151; 148A(d)

Judgement Text

"1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR W.P.(T) No. 191 of 2023  Premvati Kanwar aged about 45 years wife of Shri Sitaram Kanwar, Resident of House No. 215, Ring Road Balco, Risdi Chowk, Rajgamar, Korba, (C.G.) PIN- 495683 ---- Petitioner Versus 1. Union of India Through Secretary Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, North Block, New Delhi – 110001, India 2. Income Tax Officer-1 Korba, Office of the Income Tax Officer of the Income Tax Officer ITO-1 Korba, Income Tax Office, Kosabadi, Niharika Road, Korba, District Korba, Chhattisgarh, 495677 3. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Raipur, Office of Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Raipur, Central Revenue Building Civil Lines, Raipur, Chhattisgarh- 492001, India ---- Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Siddharth Dubey, Advocate For Respondent No. 1 : Ms. Jyoti Singh and Mr. Sharad Mishra, Advocates appear on behalf of Mr. Ramakant Mishra, Deputy Solicitor General For Respondent No. 2 & 3/State : Mr. Ajay Kumrani, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Rakesh Mohan Pandey, Judge Order On Board 26.07.2023 1. The petitioner has challenged the Annexure- P1-C which is an order passed on 26.03.2023 under Section 148A (d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'I.T. Act') and Annexure P1-D which is a notice dated 26.03.2023 issued under Section 148 of the I.T. Act. 2. The Assessing Officer while passing the order under Section 148A (d) of the I.T. Act held as under:- “6. Considering the above-mentioned facts, it is decided 2 that case of the assessee is a fit case for issuance of notice u/s 148 of the I.T. Act for the assessment year under consideration. The order is passed u/s 148A(d) of the Act after the prior approval of Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Raipur as per the provision of section 151 of the Act within one month from the end of the month in which time to furnish a reply as per 148A(b) i.e. 03/03/2023 expired after consideration of reply under clause (c) of the section 148A.” 3. Notice under Section 148 of the I.T. Act was issued to the petitioner on 26.03.2023. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the reply which was filed alongwith valuation report of the registered valuer, have not been considered by the Assessing Officer while passing the order under Section 148A(d) of the I.T. Act. Therefore, the order passed under Section 148A (d) of the I.T. Act as well as notice issued under Section 148 of the I.T. Act are liable to be set aside and the matter may be remitted back to the authority concerned to consider the reply and valuation report and to pass the order afresh. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents would oppose the contention made by learned counsel for the petitioner. 6. Taking into consideration the fact that reply filed by the petitioner alongwith valuation report have not been taken into consideration while passing the order under Section 148A (d) of the I.T. Act by the Assessing Officer, therefore, at this stage it would be appropriate to set aside the order passed on 26.03.2023 under Section 148A(d) of the I.T. Act and the notice issued under Section 148 of I.T. Act with a 3 direction to the Assessing Officer to consider the reply and valuation report issued by the registered valuer strictly in accordance with law and thereafter to pass an order afresh. The valuation report can be sent to Departmental Valuation Officer. 7. Consequently, the petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge vatti "