Arvind Tiku v. Income Tax Officer, Ward
High Court
09 Mar 2016 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · phhc
Parties
Arvind Tiku v. Income Tax Officer, Ward
Date of order
09 Mar 2016
Assessment year(s)
2003-04
Outcome
Allowed
Case summary
In Arvind Tiku v. Income Tax Officer, Ward, the High Court (2016) allowed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Decision: 4.After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, the presentwrit petition is disposed of by directing respondent No.2 to take adecision on the reply dated 1.2.2016 (Annexure P-9), in accordance withlaw by passing a speaking order and after affording an opportunity ofhearing to the petitioner with...
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
Sections referenced in this judgment
The order — as passed by the High Court
CWP No. 4463 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No. 4463 of 2016
Date of Decision: 9.3.2016
Arvind Tiku
....Petitioner.
Versus
Income Tax Officer, Ward No.1(1), Gurgaon and others
...Respondents.
1.Whether the Reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?the judgment?
2.To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
CORAM:-HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL.HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE RAJ RAHUL GARG.
PRESENT: Mr. Deepak Chopra, Advocate with
Ms. Manasvini Bajpai, Advocate for the petitioner.
AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J.
1.In this petition filed under Articles 226/227 of theConstitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ inthe nature of certiorari for quashing the notice dated 30.3.2015(Annexure P-1) issued by respondent No.1 under Section 148 of theIncome Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”). Further, a writ of prohibitionhas been sought restraining the respondents from taking any furtheraction in pursuance to the notice dated 30.3.2015 (Annexure P-1).
2.The petitioner was issued a notice dated 30.3.2015(Annexure P-1) under Section 148 of the Act for the assessment year2003-04 for initiating assessment proceedings. He sent a letter dated23.4.2015 (Annexure P-2) to respondent No.1 stating that he is a Non-Resident for the purpose of Act and there was no income chargeable totax which could be said to have escaped assessment. He also fileddetails (Annexure P-3) regarding his stay in India for the past years.
CWP No. 4463 of 2016
Another letter dated 29.4.2015 (Annexure P-4) was filed by the petitionerbefore respondent No.1 giving the details of his stay in India along withpassport. In continuation to the letter, Annexure P-4, the petitioner filedanother letter dated 11.5.2015 (Annexure P-5) making submissions onSection 6 of the Act. The file of the petitioner was transferred torespondent No.2 and accordingly a fresh notice dated 24.9.2015(Annexure P-6) under Section 143(2) of the Act was issued to thepetitioner. The petitioner filed reply dated 15.10.2015 (Annexure P-7) tothe said notice. Thereafter, the notice dated 13.1.2016 (Annexure P-8)was issued under Section 142(1) of the Act by respondent No.2 to whichthe petitioner filed reply dated 1.2.2016 (Annexure P-9). However, noresponse has been received till date. Hence, the present writ petition. 3.Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that thepetitioner filed reply dated 1.2.2016 (Annexure P-9) to the notice dated13.1.2016 (Annexure P-8) issued under Section 142(1) of the Act beforerespondent No.2 which is pending and no action has so far been takenthereon.
4.After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, the presentwrit petition is disposed of by directing respondent No.2 to take adecision on the reply dated 1.2.2016 (Annexure P-9), in accordance withlaw by passing a speaking order and after affording an opportunity ofhearing to the petitioner within a period of one month from the date ofreceipt of a certified copy of this order.
(AJAY KUMAR MITTAL)
JUDGE
March 9, 2016
gbs
(RAJ RAHUL GARG)
JUDGE
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation.
Full disclaimer & Terms.