Inthehighcourtofdelhiatnewdelhi+W.p.(C) v. Income Tax Officer Ward 53(1) Delhi & Ors

$~21 *INTHEHIGHCOURTOFDELHIATNEWDELHI+W.P.(C) 14602/2024 and CM APPL. 61330/2024VINOD RAINA HUF.....Petitioner Through:Mr Nischaya Kantoor, Advocate. versus INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 53(1) DELHI & ORS. .....Respondents Through:Mr Indruj Singh Rai with Mr SanjeevMenon, Mr Rahul Singh and MrAnmol Jagga, Advocates. % CORAM:HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICEHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA O R D E R16.12.2024 1.The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, impugning anorder dated 30.08.2024 (hereafter the impugned order) passed under Section148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter the Act) as well as a noticedated 31.08.2024 (hereafter the impugned notice) issued under Section 148 ofthe Act. 2.The learned counsel appearing for the Revenue fairly submits that theimpugned order and the impugned notice be set aside and the assessing officer(AO) be directed to decide afresh after considering the petitioner’s reply. 3.In view of the above, the impugned order and the impugned notice areset aside. The petitioner may file an additional reply to the notice dated 20.08.2024 issued under Section 148A(b) of the Act within a period of twoweeks from date. The AO shall consider the petitioner’s earlier reply dated27.08.2024 as well as the additional reply which may be filed and accordinglypass an order as it considers fit in accordance with law. 4.It is clarified that if the petitioner does not file an additional reply withina period of two weeks, as stated above, the AO shall proceed on the basis ofthe available reply without affording the petitioner any further opportunity.The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Pending application shallalso stand closed. 5.It is clarified that all rights and contentions of the parties are reserved. VIBHU BAKHRU, ACJ TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J DECEMBER 16, 2024/trClick here to check corrigendum, if any