Smt. Ragni Devi @ Smt. Ragini Devi V. The Union Of India and Ors

CWJC/1589/2019

AI Insights

Smt. Ragni Devi filed a writ petition challenging the assessment order and demand notices issued by the Income Tax Department, which claimed outstanding tax dues based on a scrutiny assessment for the year 2012-13. The petitioner argued that the demands were based on presumptions and ignored her actual income reported in the tax returns. However, the court dismissed the petition, noting that the petitioner had already filed an appeal against the same orders with the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal). The court emphasized the principle of not allowing parallel proceedings for the same matter and directed the appellate authority to expedite the decision on the pending appeal.

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 724178 (HC-PATNA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 25-11-2020
• Assessment Year: misc
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: RISHI SINHA
• Assessee Lawyers: BINOD JHA
• Keywords: Assessment Order; Demand notice; Income Tax; Natural Justice; Writ of Certiorari

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1589 of 2019 ====================================================== Smt. Ragni Devi @ Smt. Ragini Devi, wife of Shri Chandra Bhushan Ojha R/o- Khabra, P.S.- Sadar, Dist- Muzaffarpur (Bihar) ... ... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The Union Of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Government of India, New Delhi 2. The Director Department of Income Tax, govt. of India, New Delhi 3. The Joint/ Additional Director Department of Income Tax, Govt. of India, New Delhi 4. The Chief Commissioner Department of Income tax, Govt. of Income Tax, Govt. of India, New Delhi 5. The Commisioner, Muzaffarpur. Department of Income Tax, Govt. of India, New Delhi 6. The Joint Commissioner, Muzaffarpur Under the Department of Income Tax , Govt. of India, New Delhi 7. The Deputy Commissioner, Muzaffarpur Under the Department of Income Tax, Govt. of India, New Delhi 8. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Bela Kohi, Bla, Muzaffarpur(Bihar) ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Binod Kumar Jha, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Rishi Raj Sinha, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. KUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. KUMAR) (The proceedings of the Court are being conducted through Video Conferencing and the Advocates joined the proceedings through Video Conferencing from their residence.) Date : 25-11-2020 Heard. Petitioner has prayed for following relief:- “The present application is for issuance of writ in the nature of writ of certiorari for quashing and setting aside of assessment order and demand notice dated 25.8.2017 (Annexures-3, 4 & 5) and demand notice dated 10.11.2017 (Annexure-8), passed by the concerned respondent against Patna High Court CWJC No.1589 of 2019 dt.25-11-2020 2/2 the petitioner, by which the petitioner has been asked to make payment of Rs.16,21,294/- and further Rs.9,88,274/- as outstanding demand, raised by the scrutiny assessment for the assessment year 2012-13 which is on the presumption and hypothetical basis, ignoring the real and true facts as well as without considering the reply/show cause of the petitioner, as the petitioner has already filed her income return, according to her real income and further be pleased to direct the concerned respondents to drop the entire proceedings against her in this regards, which is beyond laws and real facts as well as same is violation of natural justice and other concerned law. And/or pass such other writ/ writs, order/orders as your Lordships deem fit and proper.” It has been stated in para 6 of counter affidavit filed on behalf of Union of India represented through Income Tax Department that against assessment order and demand notice dated 25.8.2017 and 10.11.2017, petitioner has also filed appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), as such, petitioner cannot be permitted to resort two parallel proceedings against the same order and, accordingly, the present writ petition is dismissed. The appellate authority shall decide the appeal filed by petitioner at the earliest, if not already decided. Sanjay/- (Sanjay Karol, CJ) ( S. Kumar, J) AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 28.11.2020 Transmission Date NA "