Case Law Details
Hardev Singh Vs ITO (Delhi High Court)
Having perused the paper book, this Court is of the view that the impugned order under Section 148A(d) of the Act has been passed in great haste and in gross violation of principle of natural justice as the Petitioner was not given reasonable time to file a reply.
In any event, as the impugned order under Section 148A(d) of the Act had been passed on 29th March, 2022 i.e. after receipt of the detailed reply by the Petitioner dated 24th March, 2022, the Assessing Officer should have considered the same as it was available on record. By not considering the reply of the Petitioner dated 24th March, 2022, the mandate of Section 148A(c) has been violated as it casts a duty on the Assessing Officer, by using the expression ‘shall’, to consider the reply of the Petitioner/assessee in response to notice under Section 148A(b) before making an order under Section 148A(d) of the Act. This Court in Fena Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT Circle 7-1 & Anr. in W.P.(C) 6553/2022 had quashed the order passed under Section 148A(d) of the Act in similar circumstances i.e. where the Assessing Officer had not taken into consideration the reply along with the documents/evidences filed by the assessee before passing the order under Section 148A(d).
Consequently, the impugned order under Section 148A(d) of the Act and impugned notice under Section 148 of the Act are quashed and the matter is remanded back to the Assessing Officer with a direction to decide the notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act by passing a reasoned order in accordance with law, after taking into account the reply filed by the Petitioner/Assessee.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF DELHI HIGH COURT
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
