Satyanarayan Agrawal V. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Raipur and The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Bhilai

WPT/126/2023

AI Insights

Satyanarayan Agrawal filed a writ petition against the notices and orders issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Income Tax authorities. The petitioner contested the acknowledgment and consideration of his reply to a notice under Section 148 A(b), claiming it was not considered in the subsequent order under Section 148 A(d). The respondents argued that the reply was indeed considered, despite the initial claim of non-response. The court examined the documents and found that the petitioner's reply was analyzed, leading to the dismissal of the writ petition.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 805018 (HC-CHHATTISGARH)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 10-05-2023
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Gian Castings Private Limited v. Central Board of Direct Taxes and others
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act of 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: AJAY KUMRANI
• Assessee Lawyers: MOOL JAIN
• Keywords: Assessment; Income Tax; Notice Quashing; Section 148; Writ petition
• Section: 148; 148A(b); 148A(d); 148A(c)

Judgement Text

"1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPT No. 126 of 2023 Satyanarayan Agrawal, S/o Late Shri Thakursidas Agrawal, Aged About 66 Years, R/o 41/1, Nehru Nagar (W), Bhilai, District-Durg Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner Versus 1. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Raipur, Central Revenue Building, Civil Lines, Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), 32/32 Banglows, Bhilai, District-Durg Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Mool Chand Jain, Advocate For Respondent/s : Mr. Ajay Kumrani, PL Hon'ble Mr. Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order on Board 10/05/2023 1. The present writ petition is filed seeking for following reliefs :- “10.1) Calling the records of the case. 10.2) Quashing the notice under Section 148 issued on 20.03.2023 (Annexure-P/10) and order passed under Section 148A(d) on (Annexure-P/9) passed by the respondent no.2. 10.3) Directing the respondent to not to proceed further against the petitioner in the matter of assessment in pursuance of notice under Section 148. 2 10.4) Any other relief, which this Hon’ble Court deems fit may also be granted.” 2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was served with a notice under Section 148 A(b) on 10.03.2023 granting time to submit his reply till 18.03.2023. The petitioner submitted his reply on 18.03.2023. However, while passing the order under Section 148 A(b), the respondent authorities have mentioned that assessee has not responded to the notice issued under Section 148 A(b). He further submits that upon receiving the order under Section 148 A(d), he informed the authorities about submission of his reply on 18.03.2023. Pursuant to the said information given by the petitioner, the respondent no.2 issued a letter on 29.03.2023 mentioning subject under Section 148 A(b) wherein submission of reply of the petitioner was acknowledged and further mentioned that it was considered too. The said fact mentioned in the letter is contradictory to the order passed under Section 148 A(d), particularly paragraph 6 of the order. He further submits as reply submitted by the petitioner was not considered which is mandatory under Section 148 A(c), the order passed under Section 148 A(d) is in violation of provision of I.T. Act of 1961. 3. Counsel for the respondent opposes the submission of counsel for the petitioner and would submit that respondent no.2 has though recorded that petitioner has not responded the notice under Section 148A(b). However, in paragraph ‘7’ of the order passed under clause (d) of Section 148 A, it is mentioned that reply and materials available on record have been analysed. Therefore, contention of the petitioner is not correct. 4. I have heard the counsel for the parties. To appreciate the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner, I have perused the order under Section 148 A(d) of the I.T. Act of 1961 dated 20.03.2023. Perusal of the said order in paragraph 6 though, it is mentioned that assessee has not responded to the show cause notice under Section 148 A(b), however, in paragraph ‘7’ of the order, it is further mentioned that the reply of the assessee and materials available on record have been analyzed. The observation made in the order in 3 paragraph ‘7’, is one and the same which is mentioned in the letter dated 29.03.2023 of the respondent no.2 informing as to why the reply submitted by the petitioner is not accepted. As in the order, there is nowhere categorically mentioned of considering the reply and reasons for not accepting the reply submitted by the petitioner. Merely because, in paragraph 6, it is mentioned that assessee has not responded, submission of the counsel for the petitioner is that it cannot be accepted that reply submitted by the petitioner on 18.03.2023 was not considered while passing the order. 5. Counsel for the respondent has also placed reliance upon the decision taken in the case of Gian Castings Private Limited v. Central Board of Direct Taxes and others, in CWP No.9142 of 2022 decided on 02.06.2022 by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, wherein the Court has observed that error of law/fact within jurisdiction cannot be considered under Article 226/227 of Constitution of India. The said order was challenged before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The order passed by the High Court was affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court reserving the right of the petitioner to raise those ground/contentions at the appropriate stage had disposed of the petition. 6. In the aforementioned facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any error in passing the order under Section 148 A(d) of the I.T. Act of 1961. The writ petition accordingly stands dismissed. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Rohit "