The Union Of India v. Per Court

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 3333 OF 2024 Pralhad Dnyandev KaraleVERSUS The Union Of India Through Its Income Tax Officer Mr. V. S. Undre, Advocate for the Petitioner Mr. Alok Sharma, Advocate for the Respondent CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE AND R. M. JOSHI, JJ. DATE :1[st] April, 2024 PER COURT :- 1.The impugned order is passed on 24[th] March, 2022 and thisPetition has been filed on 7[th] March, 2024, which is practically after twoyears. The learned Advocate for the Department submits that a finalorder under Section 147 read with Section 148 of the Income Tax Act,1961 has already been passed on 28[th] March, 2024. 2.Apparently, the Petitioner has filed this Petition belatedly. Insimilar circumstances, the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court hasdelivered an order dated 22[nd] March, 2024 in the matter of IndianNational Congress Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central-19and Anr. in W.P. (C) 4264 of 2024 & CM Nos. 17433/2024 & 17435/2024and other connected matters. For the sake of brevity, paragraph 35 and36 are reproduced as under: “35.The writ petitioner has thus chosen to approachthis Court only a few days before the time forcompletion of assessment would expire and at theproverbial fag end of the proceedings. We consequentlyfind no justification to interdict the assessmentproceedings at this belated stage by invoking ourjurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.However and whether the asserted delay incommencement of proceedings would be fatal to theassessment itself is a question that we leave open to beurged at an appropriate juncture. 36.Accordingly and subject to the aforesaidobservations, we dismiss these writ petitions. Allpending applications shall stand disposed of.” 3.The learned Advocate for the Petitioner places reliance on the following judgments: (i)Shukla Enterprises Private Limited Vs. AssistantCommissioner of Income Tax- Circle 22(2) Delhi and Anrin W.P.(C) 3957/2023, dated 28.03.2023 (Delhi HighCourt) (ii)Majestic Handicraft Private Limited Vs. DeputyCommissioner of Income Tax in W.P. (C) 3797/2023,dated 27.03.2023 (Delhi High Court) (iii)Ornate Agencies Private Limited Vs. Acit circle 19(1)New Delhi and Anr. in W.P.(C) 3671/2023 (Delhi HighCourt) (iv)Hosdurg Beedi Workers Industrial Service Type Co-operative Soceity Ltd. Vs. The Income Tax Officer andAnother in WP (C) No. 13984 of 2023, dated 23.08.2023(High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam) (v)Koyambrath Puthiyapurayil Mohammed Kunhi Vs.The Income Tax Officer in WP(C) No. 28069 of 2023 dated25.09.2023 (High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam). 4.The learned Advocate for the Respondent places reliance onthe judgments of the Calcutta High Court in Lakshman Prasad AgarwalVs. Union of Iindia and Others, WPO 2006 of 2022 decided on 20-05-2022 and of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Commissioner ofIncome Tax and Others Vs. Chhabil Dass Agarwal, (2013) 8 AD (SC) 620. 5.The learned Advocate for the Petitioner submits that thePetitioner may be granted the liberty to raise all grounds in the Appealproceedings that are now to be filed under Section 148 of the Act. 6.In view of the above, this Writ Petition is disposed off. Therequest of the Petitioner that all the contentions of the Petitioner may beconsidered in the Appeal, does not require any comments since theIncome Tax Authorities are duty bound to deal with all the contentionsthat are raised by the Petitioner in theappeal to be filed. ( R. M. JOSHI, J. ) ( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J. ) ssp