Sunil Kumar Agarwal V. Asst. Director of Income Tax and others

WP(C)/9292/2021

AI Insights

In this case, Sunil Kumar Agarwal, the petitioner and an Income Tax assessee from Rourkela, challenged a summons issued by the Assistant Director of Income Tax, Rourkela, under Section 131(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The summons required him to appear and produce documents either personally or through an authorized representative. The petitioner alleged that the summons were issued with mala fide intentions, influenced by personal adversaries, specifically mentioning his daughter’s father-in-law and his son, who were named as opposite parties. The Income Tax Department defended the summons, arguing that the writ petition was not maintainable for challenging the summons and that no jurisdictional error was committed. The court, after hearing both parties, dismissed the writ petition, finding no evidence of mala fide or jurisdictional overreach in the issuance of the summons.

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 798076 (HC-MISC)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 02-07-2021
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: RADHESHYAM CHIMANKA
• Assessee Lawyers: SIDHARTHA RAY
• Keywords: Income Tax; Jurisdictional Error; Mala fide; Summons; Writ petition
• Section: 131(1A)

Judgement Text

" Page 1 of 3 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.9292 of 2021 Sunil Kumar Agarwal …. Petitioner Mr. Sidhartha Ray, Advocate -versus- Asst. Director of Income Tax and others …. Opposite Parties Mr. Radheshyam Chimanka, Sr. Standing Counsel. CORAM: JUSTICE S.K.MISHRA JUSTICE B.P.ROUTRAY Order No. ORDER 02.7.2021. 02. 1. This matter is taken up by video conferencing mode. 2. Heard Mr. Sidhartha Ray, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. Radheshyam Chimanka, learned Sr. Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department. 3. In this Writ Petition, the Petitioner, an Income Tax Assesse, resident of Rourkela, in the district of Sundargarh, has assailed the notice, Annexure-1, issued by the Office of the Asst. Director of Income Tax, Investigation, DDIT/ADIT, Rourkela to appear before him on 09.3.2021 to give evidence and or produce documents either personally or through authorized // 2 // Page 2 of 3 representative. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the summons issued to him under Section 131 (1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is tainted with mala fide. He further argues that such summon is illegal and violates the requirement of Section 131 (1A) of the Income Tax Act. 4. Mr. Radheshyam Chimanka, learned Sr. Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department, on the other hand, contended that in a Writ Petition issuance of summon is not maintainable. He also submits that the Income Tax Department did not commit any jurisdictional error in issuing notice to the Petitioner. 5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that summons have been issued at the behest of his daughter’s father-in-law who has been arrayed as Opposite Party No.2 and his son as Opposite Party No.3. 6. However, except bald allegations in the Writ Petition that the summons have been issued by virtue of pressure tactics adopted by Opposite Party No.2, no cogent and reliable materials have been placed before this Court to demonstrate that such a notice is tainted with mala fide and had been issued at the instance of the Opposite Party No.2. 7. Moreover, there appears to no the excesses of power or jurisdiction conferred upon the Office of the Asst. Director of Income Tax, Investigation, in issuing a notice to the Petitioner // 3 // Page 3 of 3 to appear in person or through the authorised representative and to produce books of account. There is no merit in the Writ Petition, 8. Hence, we are not inclined to admit the Writ Petition and the same is dismissed at the stage of fresh admission. 9. As the restrictions due to resurgence of COVID-19 are continuing, learned counsel for the parties may utilize a printout of the order available in the High Court’s website, at par with certified copy, subject to attestation by the concerned advocate Mr. Sidhartha Ray, learned counsel for the Petitioner, or Mr. Radheshyam Chimanka, learned Sr. Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department, in the manner prescribed vide Court’s Notice No.4587 dated 25th March, 2020 as modified by Court’s Notice No.4798 dated 15th April, 2021. (S.K.Mishra) Judge ( B.P.Routray ) Judge AKB "