Case Law Details
Bholi Kumar Vs ITO Ward 51(1) Delhi & Anr. (Delhi High Court)
Introduction: The Delhi High Court recently adjudicated the case of Bholi Kumar Vs ITO Ward 51(1) Delhi & Anr., where the petitioner sought to set aside an order under section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The core contention was the alleged escapement of income not exceeding Rs. 12,800.
Detailed Analysis: The petitioner, represented by Mr. Nagesh Behl, argued that the income chargeable to tax, as per the revenue’s case, did not surpass Rs. 12,800. On September 25, 2023, Mr. Abhishek Maratha, Senior Standing Counsel for the revenue, informed the court of a letter dated October 9, 2023. The letter stated the petitioner’s claim that the income escaping assessment had reduced to Rs. 12,800. Following this, the revenue expressed reluctance to pursue the case due to the meager amount involved.
Mr. Maratha submitted that the court may dispose of the petition, leaving the question of law open. The court, considering the meager amount and the revenue’s stance, decided to dispose of the petition. The court clarified that while the revenue does not wish to pursue the case further, any potential questions of law remain open for consideration in a suitable future case.
Conclusion: In a recent judgment, the Delhi High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by Bholi Kumar challenging the order under section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act. The court, noting the meager amount involved (not exceeding Rs. 12,800), accepted the revenue’s decision not to pursue the case further. While disposing of the petition, the court left any potential questions of law open for future consideration in an appropriate case.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF DELHI HIGH COURT
1. This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking setting aside of the order dated 29.07.2022 issued under section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) as well as notice dated 30.07.2022 issued under section 148 of the Act by the respondent No. 1.
2. The prayers made in the writ petition are as under:-
“A. Issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus/Certiorari or any other like writ, order or direction, setting aside and quash the order dated 29.07.2022 issued u/s 148A(d) as well as second notice dated 30.07.2022 u/s 148 of the Act issued by the Respondent No. 1 and entire assessment proceedings after issue of said notice; and/or
B. Issue a writ of and/or order and/or direction in the nature of Prohibition commanding Respondents to forebear from giving effect to and/or taking any step whatsoever pursuant to and/or in furtherance of the said order passed u/s 148A(d) of the Act; and/or
C. Issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus/Certiorari or any other like writ, order or direction, setting aside and quash the first notice dated 29.06.2021 issued u/s 148 and entire assessment proceedings after issue of said notice; and/or
D. Pass any such other order(s) or direction(s) as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the present case.”
3. According to Mr. Nagesh Behl, learned counsel for the petitioner/assessee, the income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment is not more than Rs. 12,800. He submits that even if the case set up by the revenue is taken into account, the income chargeable to tax cannot be more than the aforesaid amount.
4. On 25.09.2023, Mr. Abhishek Maratha, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondent/ revenue submits that he would take instructions in the matter as to whether the Revenue would like to pursue the matter having regard to the amount involved.
5. Today, Mr. Maratha brought the notice of this Court to a letter dated 09.10.2023 and the relevant paragraphs are extracted hereunder:-
“A mail was received in writ petition (C) No. 4913 of 2023 in the matter of Bholi Kumar, PAN-ATJPK4166B, AY-2017-18. The captioned matter was listed on 25.09.202, wherein, the Counsel for Petitioner has said that now after the filing of the counter Affidavit the income escaping has come down to Rs. 12,800/-. Therefore, the Hon’ble court has asked the standing counsel to write to the Ld. PCIT concerned that” whether the revenue wishes to continue with the escapement of such meager amount of income.’
In this regard, the matter was discussed with Ld. Pr. CIT and following observation has been made by Ld. Pr CIT:
“As the Hon’ble High Court has observed that the amount being agitated is meager, the undersigned does not wish to continue further on this issue. Other than that on the Substantial Questions of Law, however, we stand by the submission made in the Counter Affidavit.”
(Bold portion marked as per the letter dated 09.10.2023)
6. Maratha, Senior Standing Counsel submits that in view of the above, this Court may dispose of the present petition and leave the Question of Law open.
7. In view of the submissions made by Mr. Maratha, learned Senior Standing Counsel coupled with the letter placed on record on behalf of the Revenue, we dispose of the present writ petition in terms of the fact that the Revenue does not wish to pursue the case on the ground that the amount is meager. However, the Question of Law, if any, are left open to be decided in an appropriate case.
8. The petition is disposed of in above terms, alongwith the pending applications, if any.
