The Principal Commissioner Income Tax Nashik And Others v. Ghuge And Y. G. Khobragade, Jj

- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABAD 906 WRIT PETITION NO.8784 OF 2023 PS COTTON AND OIL INDUSTRIES THROUGH IT'S AUTHORISEDPARTNER PRAVIN RAMKISAN CHANDAKVERSUS THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX NASHIK AND OTHERS Mr.R.R.Chandak, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr.Alok Sharma, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3. ( CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE AND Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, JJ.) DATE : AUGUST 4, 2023 PER COURT: 1.This is a case wherein the Petitioner claims that before hecould receive the notice u/s 148A(b), an order u/s 148A(d) of theIncome Tax Act was passed. 2.The learned Advocate representing the Department,vehemently opposes the said contention and prays that the petitiondeserves to be dismissed since the Petitioner has the liberty to canvassall his points while responding to the show cause notice u/s 148 of theIncome Tax Act. 3.We have noted the relevant sequence of events. The showcause notice u/s 148A(b) was issued on 30.03.2023. The Petitionerclaims to have received the said notice on 14.04.2023 (a Nationalholiday), through post. On the very same day, the Petitioner prepareda reply and claims to have delivered it to the concerned Ward Officer,Aurangabad on 14.04.2023. There is no dispute that 14th April is aNational Holiday. 4.The learned Advocate for the Department submits that it ismost unlikely and improbable that the Postman, who is in the service ofthe Central Government, could have delivered the envelope of theDepartment to the Petitioner on 14.04.2023. Moreover, the Departmenthas not yet received the acknowledgment. The Petitioner has producedthe acknowledgment. 5.In the light of the above disputed facts, we are circumspect as towhen did the Petitioner receive the notice. There is, however, nodispute that the impugned order was passed on 13.04.2023, and thereply of the Petitioner was not before the Authority. A copy of the saidreply dated 14.04.2023 is placed before us by the Petitioner to suggest that the reply was prepared. However, there is no evidence that thereply was served upon the IT Department. The Petitioner has noacknowledgment either of a hand delivery or a delivery through thepost. 6.Though we are not convinced by the explanation tenderedby the Petitioner, we are giving the benefit of doubt to him, since hisreply is not before the Court. This order shall not be treated as aprecedent and shall not be cited in any other case by anyone. 7.In view of the above, this petition is partly allowed only inthe light of the peculiar facts recorded above. The Petitioner shall servethe reply on the Respondent Authority, on or before 11.08.2023.Thereafter, the Department is at liberty to pass an order u/s 148A(d) ofthe Income Tax Act. 8.Needless to state, after such order is passed, the Petitionerwould take recourse to the statutory remedy, as is permissible in Law. ( Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, J. ) ( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)