Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Decision delivered on: 15.03.2023
WORLD WIDE METALS PRIVATE LIMITED ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr Abhishek Garg, Mr Yash Gaiha and Mr Rawesh Manokotia, Advs.
WARD 27(1), DELHI & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr Aseem Chawla, Sr Standing Counsel with Mr Rishabh Nangia, Ms
Anuja Pethia and Mr Subhashish Kumar, Advs.
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU [Physical Hearing/Hybrid Hearing (as per request)]
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J. (ORAL):
CM No.12200/2023
JUDGMENT
1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions. W.P.(C) 3159/2023 & CM No.12199/2023 [Application filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking interim relief]
2. Issue notice. 2.[1] Mr Aseem Chawla accepts notice on behalf of the respondents/revenue.
3. In view of the directions that we propose to pass, Mr Chawla says that no counter-affidavit is required to be filed at this stage.
4. Accordingly, with the consent of counsel for the parties, the writ petition is taken up for hearing and final disposal at this stage itself.
5. The substantive prayers made in the writ petition read as follows:
6. The principal grievance of the petitioner is that the notice dated 22.03.2022 issued under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short, “Act”] provided only three days to the petitioner to submit a response. 6.[1] It is, therefore, the contention of the petitioner that the order which thereafter flowed from the aforementioned show cause notice is legally flawed.
7. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, a minimum of seven (7) days timeframe had to be provided for filing a response.
8. A perusal of the aforementioned notice dated 22.03.2022 does indicate that the petitioner was called upon to file a reply via ‘e-proceeding’ facility, albeit, on or before 25.03.2022.
9. Mr Chawla cannot but accept that the minimum timeframe that is required to be given to the assessee to respond is seven (7) clear days under clause (b) of Section 148A of the Act. 9.[1] This aspect of the matter has been dealt with in the judgment dated 14.02.2023, rendered by this court in W.P.(C)No.1243/2023, titled Indus Valley Partners India Pvt. Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 10-1 & Anr.
10. Accordingly, the impugned notices and order are set aside.
11. The Assessing Officer (AO) will be at liberty to take next steps in the matter, albeit, as per law.
12. The writ petition is disposed of, in the aforesaid terms. 12.[1] Consequently, the pending interlocutory application shall also stand disposed of.
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J TARA VITASTA GANJU, J MARCH 15, 2023 aj Click here to check corrigendum, if any