Veto Electropowers (India) Private Limited and Mr. Narain Das Gurnani and Mr. Babu Lal Gurnani and Veto Switchgears And Cables Limited and Mr. Akshay Kumar Gurnani V. Union Of India and Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Jaipur and Director General Of Income-Tax (Investigation), Rajasthan

CW/126/2024

AI Insights

The case involves multiple writ petitions filed by Veto Electropowers (India) Private Limited, Veto Switchgears and Cables Limited, and individuals Mr. Narain Das Gurnani and Mr. Akshay Kumar Gurnani against the Union of India and other income tax authorities. The petitions were filed challenging notices issued under the Income Tax Act, 1961. The primary legal issue was the delay in filing the writ petitions after the issuance of the tax notices. The petitioners argued that the delay should not bar the court from exercising its discretion to entertain the petitions, citing various precedents. However, the respondents highlighted a similar case where the writ petition was dismissed due to delay. The court decided not to entertain the petitions based on the delay but allowed for individual appeals to be considered on their merits if filed within a specified timeframe.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 817361 (HC-RAJASTHAN)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 22-01-2025
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Suresh Chand Versus Union of India and Others, M/s. Dehri Rohtas Light Railway Company Limited Versus District Board, Kiran Singh and Others Versus Chaman Paswan and Others, Ram Babu Agarwal Versus Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & Another, Micro Marbles (P) Ltd. Versus Office of the Income Tax Officer, R. K. Buildcreations Private Limited Versus The Income Tax Officer, Madhavlal Sindhoo Versus V.R. Idurkar, Akhila Sujith Versus Income Tax Officer, International, Bhoomi Viral Shah Versus Income Tax Officer, Sathya Kumar and Others Versus The State of Andhra Pradesh and Others, Nirmal Kumar Bardiya Versus Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: SIDDHARTH BAPNA; MEYHUL MITTAL
• Assessee Lawyers: JATIN HARJAI; DHARAN GANDHI; JAISHREE KOTHARI
• Keywords: Delay in filing; Writ Petition Dismissal; Income tax notices
• Section: 142(1); 143(2)

Judgement Text

"[2025:RJ-JP:3177-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 81/2024 Veto Electropowers (India) Private Limited, 506, 5Th Floor, Plot No. B-9, Landmark Building, New Link Road, Andheri (W), Mumbai - 400058, Through Authorised Person Mr. Narain Das Gurnani, S/o Rewa Chand Gurnani, Age 66 Years (Approx), R/o 171, Sindhi Colony, Raja Park, Jaipur 302004 ----Petitioner Versus 1. Union Of India, Through The Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Ministry Of Finance, Government Of India, North Block, New Delhi-110001. 2. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Jaipur, 418, 4Th Floor, Jeevan Nidhi-2, Lic Building, Ambedkar Circle, Jaipur, 302005 3. Director General Of Income-Tax (Investigation), Rajasthan, New Central Revenue Building, B.d. Road, Statue Circle, Jaipur-302005 ----Respondents Connected With D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 126/2024 Mr. Babu Lal Gurnani S/o Rewa Chand Gurnani, Aged About 61 Years (Approx), R/o A-1, Saket Colony, Adarsh Nagar, Jaipur, 302004. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Union Of India, Through The Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Ministry Of Finance, Government Of India, North Block, New Delhi-110001. 2. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Jaipur, 418, 4Th Floor, Jeevan Nidhi-2, Lic Building, Ambedkar Circle, Jaipur , 302005 3. Director General Of Income-Tax (Investigation), Rajasthan, New Central Revenue Building, B.d. Road, Statue Circle, Jaipur-302005 ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 84/2024 [2025:RJ-JP:3177-DB] (2 of 5) [CW-81/2024] Veto Switchgears And Cables Limited, 506, Fifth Floor, Landmark Building, New Link Road, Andheri (West), Mumbai 400058. Through Authorised Person Mr. Akshay Kumar Gurnani S/o Vishnu Kumar Gurnani, Age 26 Year (Approx), R/o 250, Freionter Colony, Adarsh Nagar, Jaipur, 302004 ----Petitioner Versus 1. Union Of India, Through The Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Ministry Of Finance, Government Of India, North Block, New Delhi-110001. 2. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Jaipur, 418, 4Th Floor, Jeevan Nidhi-2, Lic Building, Ambedkar Circle, Jaipur, 302005 3. Director General Of Income-Tax (Investigation), Rajasthan, New Central Revenue Building, B.d. Road, Statue Circle, Jaipur-302005 ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 85/2024 Veto Electropowers (India) Private Limited, 506, 5Th Floor, Plot No. B-9, Landmark Building, New Link Road, Andheri (W), Mumbai- 400058. Through Authorised Person Mr. Narain Das Gurnani S/o Rewa Chand Gurnani, Age 66 Years (Approx), R/o 171, Sindhi Colony, Raja Park, Jaipur, 302004 ----Petitioner Versus 1. Union Of India, Through The Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Ministry Of Finance, Government Of India, North Block, New Delhi-110001. 2. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Jaipur, 418, 4Th Floor, Jeevan Nidhi-2, Lic Building, Ambedkar Circle, Jaipur , 302005 3. Director General Of Income-Tax (Investigation), Rajasthan, New Central Revenue Building, B.d. Road, Statue Circle, Jaipur-302005 ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 104/2024 Mr. Akshay Kumar Gurnani S/o Vishnu Kumar Gurnani, Aged About 26 Years (Approx), R/o 250, Freionter Colony, Adarsh [2025:RJ-JP:3177-DB] (3 of 5) [CW-81/2024] Nagar, Jaipur, 302004 ----Petitioner Versus 1. Union Of India, Through The Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Ministry Of Finance, Government Of India, North Block, New Delhi- 110001 2. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle - 3, Jaipur, 418, 4Th Floor, Jeevan Nidhi-2, Lic Building, Ambedkar Circle, Jaipur, 302005 3. Director General Of Income Tax (Investigation), Rajasthan, New Central Revenue Building, B.d. Road, Statue Circle, Jaipur-302005 ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Jatin Harjai Advocate Mr. Dharan Gandhi Advocate & Jaishree Kothari Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Siddharth Bapna Advocate with Mr. Meyhul Mittal Advocate. HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI Order 22/01/2025 1. Heard on admission. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that delay would not come in the way of exercising discretion by this Court to entertain these petitions in view of specific grounds taken in the writ petitions. He relies upon various orders passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Suresh Chand Versus Union of India and Others, (2004) 13 Supreme Court Cases 563, M/s. Dehri Rohtas Light Railway Company Limited Versus District Board and other connected matter (1992) 2 Supreme Court Cases 598, Kiran Singh and Others Versus [2025:RJ-JP:3177-DB] (4 of 5) [CW-81/2024] Chaman Paswan and Others, AIR 1954 SC 340 and the decisions of this Court in the cases of Ram Babu Agarwal Versus Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & Another, D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.730/2024, decided on 15.03.2024, Micro Marbles (P) Ltd. Versus Office of the Income Tax Officer, [2023] 457 ITR 569 (Rajasthan), R. K. Buildcreations Private Limited Versus The Income Tax Officer, D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.14414/2022, decided on 08.02.2024 and the decisions of Bombay High Court in the cases of Madhavlal Sindhoo Versus V.R. Idurkar, [1956] 30 ITR 332 (Bombay), Akhila Sujith Versus Income Tax Officer, International, [2024] 166 taxmann.com 478 (Bombay), Bhoomi Viral Shah Versus Income Tax Officer, [2024] 165 taxmann.com 682 (Bombay) and the decision of Andhra Pradesh High Court at Hyderabad in the case of Sathya Kumar and Others Versus The State of Andhra Pradesh and Others, AIR 1971 AP 320. 3. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, relies upon order dated 29.11.2023 passed by this Court in the case of Nirmal Kumar Bardiya Versus Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax by submitting that in similar circumstances where notices under Section 143 (2) and 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 were issued, there was delay in approaching this court, the writ petition was dismissed on the ground of delay. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that petitioners have not participated in the proceedings. [2025:RJ-JP:3177-DB] (5 of 5) [CW-81/2024] 5. We find that notices under Section 143(2) and 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 were issued in the month of June, 2023 and the writ petitions were filed in January, 2024. 6. Therefore, in these circumstances, in exercise of our discretion, we are not inclined to entertain the petitions and the same are, accordingly, dismissed with liberty to challenge the order by taking recourse to appropriate remedy available under the law. 7. If the individual appeal is filed within a period of two months, the appeal shall be decided on its own merit without going into the issue of limitation. 8. A copy of this order be placed on record of each writ petition. (PANKAJ BHANDARI),J (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),CJ SANJAY KUMAWAT/Mahima/55-59 "