Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Khamgaon v. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION NO. 5460/2022 Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Khamgaon,Through its Authorized Signatory Ratan Rathi,Aged Major, Occ.: Chartered Accountant,Resident of Khamgaon, District Buldana. PETITIONER -VERSUS- 1.Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Khamgaon, District Buldana. 2.Principal Chief Commissioner of IncomeTax-1, Ayakar Bhavan, Civil Lines, Nagpur.RESPONDENTSTax-1, Ayakar Bhavan, Civil Lines, Nagpur.RESPONDENTS __________________________________________________________________________ Shri Deepak Gupta, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Anand Parchure, counsel for the respondents. CORAM : A. S. CHANDURKARAND M.W. CHANDWANI, JJ. DATE : OCTOBER 17,2022.ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : A.S. CHANDURKAR, J.) RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard the learnedcounsel for the parties. 2.The challenge raised in this writ petition is to the order dated31.03.2022 issued under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961(for short, ‘the Act of 1961’). It is submitted by the learned counsel forthe petitioner that the notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act of 1961was issued on 23.03.2022 and reply was sought from the petitioner on orbefore 31.03.2022. The petitioner submitted its reply on 31.03.2022 andon the same day the impugned order came to be passed on 10.41 p.m.after obtaining approval of the Principal Chief Commissioner of IncomeTax-1. According to the petitioner the impugned order does not considerthe petitioner’s reply dated 31.03.2022. WP 5460-22 3.On perusing the writ petition and the documents filed alongwith itas well as the reply filed on behalf of the respondents it becomes clearthat the petitioner had responded to the notice dated 23.03.2022 and itsreply is dated 31.03.2022. Before passing the order under Section148A(d) of the Act of 1961 it is necessary to obtain approval of thePrincipal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax. The record indicates thatsuch approval though stated to be obtained the impugned order has beenpassed at 10.41 p.m. This indicates that the reply filed by the petitionerto the notice has not been taken into consideration especially in view ofthe fact that such reply was filed on 31.03.2022. 4.We find that a somewhat similar question was considered by thisCourt in Writ Petition No. 2154 of 2022 [Samadha Corporation(Partnership Firm) Versus Income Tax Officer, Ward No.5(3), Nagpur &Another] decided on 20.09.2022. Given the aforesaid facts, we are of theview that the impugned order passed under Section 148A(d) of the Act of1961 has been issued without considering the petitioner’s reply inasmuchas paragraph 1 of the said order records that the petitioner failed tosubmit its explanation. In view of aforesaid the impugned order dated31.03.2022 passed under Section 148A(d) of the Act of 1961 is set aside.The respondents are at liberty to take further steps in accordance withlaw and as permissible under the said Act. WP 5460-22 5.The writ petition is disposed of in aforesaid terms. Rule accordingly. No costs. (M.W. CHANDWANI, J.) (A.S. CHANDURKAR, J.) APTE