Ramesh Chand Agarwal Son Of Shri Bhorelal Agarwal v. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1), Alwar

[2024:RJ-JP:27202-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7491/2023 Ramesh Chand Agarwal Son of Shri Bhorelal Agarwal, Aged About 64Years, Currently Residing at 34A Rajpath Nagar, Lajpath Nagar, SchemeNo.2, Alwar-301001 Permanent Resident of Thangal Bazar, Imphal,Manipur. ----Petitioner Versus Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1), Alwar Having Its Address At CentralRevenue Building, Moti Doongri Road, Alwar. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Siddharth Ranka, Adv. with Mr. Rohan Chatter, Adv.For Respondent(s): Mr. Anuroop Singhi, Adv. with Mr. N.S. Bhati, Adv. &Mr. Aditya Khandelwal, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAROrder 01/07/2024 1.This petition is filed seeking quashing of order dated 13.04.2023passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short‘the Act’). 2.The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner filed a return forAssessment Year 2016-17 at Imphal, the case was taken up on scrutinyand assessment was finalized under Section 143 (3) of the Act. TheAssessing Officer at Alwar issued notice dated 24.03.2023 under Section148A(b) of the Act. On supply of reasons, the petitioner filed an objectionthat the Assessing Officer at Alwar had no jurisdiction as assessee wasbeing assessed at Imphal. 3.The short grievance raised is that specific objection raised ofjurisdiction was not dealt in the impugned order. 4.Learned counsel for the respondent defends the impugned order.Contention is that the sale and purchase of the land was made by thepetitioner at Alwar and PAN number was not disclosed. 5.The contention that the PAN number was not disclosed is refutedby counsel for the petitioner. 6.Section 148A was inserted in the Act of Finance Act of 2021,whereby, the procedure to be adopted for initiation of reassessmentproceedings was laid. Sub-Section (c) of Section 148A of the Actstipulates that the reply furnished by the assessee has to be consideredwhile passing order under Section 148(d) of the Act. 7.From perusal of the impugned order, it is evident that soleobjection raised by the petitioner was not specifically dealt by therespondent. 8.The impugned order dated 13.04.2023 is set aside, the matter isremitted back to the respondent to decide the objection afresh inaccordance with law. 9.In order to avoid delay, let the petitioner appear in the office ofrespondent on 11.07.2024 at 11:00 AM. 10.It is clarified that during pendency of the writ petition stay wasoperating and the same shall continue till the objections are decided bythe authority. 11.Needless to say that the petitioner if aggrieved of the decision onthe objection, shall be at liberty to avail remedies in accordance with law. 12.The petition is disposed of. (ASHUTOSH KUMAR),J (AVNEESH JHINGAN),J