D.b. Civil Writ Petition v. Union Of India

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN ATJODHPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14735/2018 Smt. Vinita Devi Golecha W/o Rajkumar Golecha, Aged About 42Years, Resident Gundochiyo Ka Baas, Pali Marwar. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Union Of India, Through The Principal Commissioner OfIncome Tax, (Central), Central Revenue Statue Circle,Jaipur. 2. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Department, CentralCircle-2, Jodhpur.Circle-2, Jodhpur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sandeep BhandawatFor Respondent(s): Mr. K.K Bissa HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN GOPAL VYAS Order 20/01/2025 1.The instant writ petition has been preferred claiming the following relief:- “It, is therefore, mostly respectfully prayed that thiswrit petition may kindly be allowed and- i.By an appropriate writ order or direction,impugned notice dated 27.08.2018 (Annexure-4) maykindly be quashed.ii.Any other writ, order or direction which thisHon’ble Court may deem just and proper in the factsand circumstances of the case, may kindly be passedin favour of the humble petitioner. iii.Cost of the petition is awarded in favour of thepetitioner.” 2.Mr. Sandeep Bhandawat, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that a search was conducted by the Income-Tax Department under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961(hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1961"). During the course ofassessment, a notice under Section 142(1) of the Act of 1961 was issued. Thereafter, regular assessment under Section 143(3) ofthe Act of 1961 was made. He further submits that while anappeal was preferred against the order dated 21.06.2018, thepetitioner received a notice dated 27.08.2018 (Annex.4) requiringpersonal presence under Section 131 of the Act of 1961, which isthe impugned order. 2.1Learned counsel for the petitioner makes a limitedsubmission that although Section 131 of the Act of 1961empowers the Authority to enforce the attendance of any person,but at the same time, the petitioner may be permitted to appearalongwith the authorized representative, so as to make moreefficient representation of books of accounts and other documentsas specifically asked by the Authority. 3.Learned counsel for the respondent does not oppose theprayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner. 4.This Court, considering the limited submission having beenmade that the petitioner may be permitted to appear alongwiththe authorized representative to explain the books of accounts andother documents before the Authorities in question in pursuanceof the impugned notice dated 27.08.2018, is inclined to dispose ofthe present writ petition, while directing the respondentsAuthorities to permit the petitioner to appear alongwith theauthorized representative in pursuance of the impugned noticedated 27.08.2018 (Annexure-4). 5.All pending applications stand disposed of. (MADAN GOPAL VYAS),J (DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J