Case Law Details
Nitin Nema Vs Office of Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (Madhya Pradesh High Court)
In this case Revenue has failed to understand the fundamental difference between sale consideration on one hand and income chargeable to tax on the other. The Revenue despite being assisted by thousands of experts in the field of finance and taxation, has committed such elementary mistake leading to harassment to the assessee who has been compelled to file the present avoidable piece of litigation. More so, this Court has been compelled to decide this frivolous matter wasting its precious time and energy which could have been utilised in more pressing matters.
Thus, the Revenue deserves to be saddled with exemplary cost and correspondingly the petitioner is entitled to compensatory cost. Revenue is saddled with cost of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only), out of which Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand Only) shall be credited in favour of the M.P. High Court Employees’ Association, Jabalpur (S.B.A/c No.519302010000235, Union Bank of India, State Bar Council Branch, Jabalpur) and the remaining Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) shall be paid to the petitioner through digital transfer in his bank account within a period of 30 days failing which the case shall be listed before the Bench under Caption ‘Direction’ as PUD qua cost.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution assails the order dated 25.3.2023 Annexure P-3 passed under Section 148A (d) of the Income Tax Act (IT Act for brevity) deciding that the case is fit for issuance of notice under Section 148 for asssessment/re-assessment/re-computation of income which has escaped assessment qua Assessment year 2016-2017. Further challenge is laid to the consequential notice issued under Section 148 vide Annexure P-5.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
