Rajiv Tandon V. Union of India

WP(C)/178/2023

AI Insights

The case involves petitioners Rajiv Tandon and another, who sought a writ of certiorari to quash penalty orders issued under Section 188A/189(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, amounting to \\u20b91,03,25,890. The petitioners were initially part of a partnership, M/s Trikuta Trader, which was dissolved in 2016, but the bank did not update the PAN details, leading to a tax demand against the dissolved partnership. The petitioners had already appealed the assessment orders, which was pending before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The court's decision focused on ensuring that the appeal is heard promptly and that the penalties are not enforced until the appeal is decided.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 819515 (HC-MISC)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 02-02-2023
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: K D S KOTWAL
• Assessee Lawyers: RAJEEV SANGOTRA
• Keywords: Appeal Pending; Dissolution; Income Tax Department; Partnership deed; Penalty; Writ of Certiorari
• Section: 188A; 189(3)

Judgement Text

"HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU WP(C) No.178/2023 CM No. 399/2023 Rajiv Tandon and another ….Petitioner(s)/Appellant(s) Through :- Mr. Rajeev K. Sangotra, Advocate. V/s Union of India and others ….Respondent(s) Through :- Mr. KDS Kotwal, Dy. AG. Coram: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE (ACTING) HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE MOKSHA KHAJURIA KAZMI, JUDGE ORDER 02.02.2023 1. The petitioners, through the medium of this petition, seek a writ of certiorari quashing the orders dated 26.12.2022 issued under Section 188A/189(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 issued by the respondent No. 3 by virtue of which the petitioners were directed to pay the penalty of ₹1,03,25,890/-. 2. Brief facts leading to the filing of this petition are that the petitioners entered into a Partnership Deed dated 18.11.2014 under the name and style M/s Trikuta Trader for carrying on the business of super stockiest of Vadilal Ice Cream at Jammu and Kashmir. On 01.04.2016, the said partnership deed was dissolved. After its dissolution, the said business was taken over by one Rajiv Tandon HUF who became the sole proprietor of the said business. The information regarding the dissolution of the partnership deed was given to the Bank but the Bank inadvertently did not change the PAN card and continued with the PAN Card of the partnership firm. Consequently, the Income Tax Department had raised a demand of ₹1,03,25,890/- against the firm for the Sr. No. 36 2 WP(C) No. 178/2023 Assessment Year 2017-18 but the fact remains that the said partnership stands dissolved on 01.04.2016. 3. It is averred in the petition in Para 12 of the petition that they have filed an appeal against the assessment orders issued by the respondents which is pending disposal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). 4. The grievance of the petitioners is that despite the pendency of the appeal filed by the petitioners before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), the respondent no.3 has passed the orders impugned without waiting for the outcome of the appeal filed by the petitioners. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners would be satisfied if the present petition is disposed of by directing the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to decide the appeal filed by the petitioners before it at an earliest and till a decision is taken on the appeal filed by the petitioners, they may be protected. 6. Statement of learned counsel for the petitioners is brought on record. 7. The writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to consider and decide the appeal filed before it by the petitioners at an earliest preferably within a period of six weeks from the date copy of the order along with complete paper book is served upon it. 8. Till a decision is taken by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) on the appeal filed by the petitioners, the impugned orders dated 26.12.2022 shall not be implemented. 9. Disposed of, as above. Jammu: 02.02.2023 Raj Kumar (Moksha Khajuria Kazmi) Judge ) (Tashi Rabstan) Chief Justice (Acting) "