Prakash Kumar Chandnani Son Of Shri Chander Kumarchandani, Resident v. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle (Internationaltaxation), Jaipur

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7510/2023 Prakash Kumar Chandnani Son Of Shri Chander KumarChandani, Resident 13, New Joshi Colony Brahmpuri, Jaipur ----Petitioner Versus Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle (InternationalTaxation), Jaipur Having Its Address At 4Th Floor, Jeevan Nidhi-2, Lic Building, Ambedkar Circle, Jaipur ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Siddharth Ranka with Mr. Satvika JhaMr. Satvika Jha For Respondent(s): Mr. Shantanu Sharma with Mr. Anurag MathurMr. Anurag Mathur HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR Order 07/10/2024 1.Heard. 2.With the consent of the parties, this petition is heard finally. 3.By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed correctness, legality and validity oforder dated 05.04.2023 passed under Section 148A(d) of theIncome Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act of 1961’) by respondent,followed by notice of even date issued under Section 148 of theAct of 1961 pertaining to assessment year 2016-17. 4.Amongst various grounds, one of the grounds which hasbeen taken by the petitioner is that after notice under Section148A(b) was served on the petitioner on 24.02.2023, hesubmitted a detailed reply for appropriate consideration on 17.03.2023 which was very much on records and files of the caseof the petitioner but yet the impugned order passed under Section148A(d) of the Act of 1961 incorrectly mentions that no reply wasfiled, which means that the respondent completely ignored to takeinto consideration the reply of the petitioner before arriving at aconclusion that any material information in possession of therespondent suggests that any income chargeable to tax hasescaped assessment. It is, therefore, contended that theimpugned order is liable to be set aside only on this ground. 5.In reply, learned counsel for the respondent would fairlyadmit that the reply was, in fact, filed by the petitioner on17.03.2023 on the Income Tax Portal. He however, would submitthat there were certain technical glitches due to which eventhough reply was received on record in the electronic form but thesame could not be attached with the records and therefore, onsuch basis, the officer dealing with the matter recorded that therewas no reply. 6.In view of admission of fact which has been made by learnedcounsel for the respondent which is clearly reflected in the replyon affidavit, two things are clear. Firstly, that in response to showcause notice issued to the petitioner, he initially submitted adetailed reply on 17.03.2023 which was duly uploaded on thePortal of the Income Tax Department. The second admitted fact which vitiates the decision makingprocess and warrants our interference is that the reply filed bypetitioner was not taken into consideration. It is clear from therecital of the impugned order itself wherein, it has been statedthat no reply has been filed. Apparently, reply filed by the petitioner escaped notice and consideration of the concernedauthority. That in our opinion, without anything more, is sufficientto vitiate the entire decision making process warrantinginterference. Therefore, the order impugned is liable to be setaside. 7.We, accordingly, do so. Impugned order dated 05.04.2023passed under Section 148A(d) of the Act of 1961 as also notice ofeven date issued under section 148A(b) of the Act of 1961 areheld unsustainable in law and set aside. This leaves theDepartment to consider the reply filed by the petitioner on17.03.2023 and take appropriate decision there on in accordancewith the law. Before parting with the case, we must hasten to addhere that we have not commented upon the merits of the case. 8.The petition is, accordingly, allowed. (ASHUTOSH KUMAR),J 7.We, accordingly, do so. Impugned order dated 05.04.2023passed under Section 148A(d) of the Act of 1961 as also notice ofeven date issued under section 148A(b) of the Act of 1961 areheld unsustainable in law and set aside. This leaves theDepartment to consider the reply filed by the petitioner on17.03.2023 and take appropriate decision there on in accordancewith the law. Before parting with the case, we must hasten to addhere that we have not commented upon the merits of the case. 8.The petition is, accordingly, allowed. (ASHUTOSH KUMAR),J (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),CJ Naval Gandhi-RAHUL/129