Bombay High Court
Agriculture Produce Market ... vs Income Tax Officer, Khamgaon, ... on 17 October, 2022
Bench: A.S. Chandurkar, M. W. Chandwani
WP 5460-22 1 Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 5460/2022
Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Khamgaon,
Through its Authorized Signatory Ratan Rathi,
Aged Major, Occ.: Chartered Accountant,
Resident of Khamgaon, District Buldana. PETITIONER
-VERSUS-
1. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1,
Khamgaon, District Buldana.
2. Principal Chief Commissioner of Income
Tax-1, Ayakar Bhavan, Civil Lines, Nagpur. RESPONDENTS
__________________________________________________________________________
Shri Deepak Gupta, counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Anand Parchure, counsel for the respondents.
CORAM : A. S. CHANDURKAR AND M.W. CHANDWANI, JJ.
DATE : OCTOBER 17, 2022.
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : A.S. CHANDURKAR, J.)
RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard the learned
counsel for the parties.
2. The challenge raised in this writ petition is to the order dated
31.03.2022 issued under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961
(for short, 'the Act of 1961'). It is submitted by the learned counsel for
the petitioner that the notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act of 1961
was issued on 23.03.2022 and reply was sought from the petitioner on or
before 31.03.2022. The petitioner submitted its reply on 31.03.2022 and
on the same day the impugned order came to be passed on 10.41 p.m.
after obtaining approval of the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income
Tax-1. According to the petitioner the impugned order does not consider
the petitioner's reply dated 31.03.2022.
WP 5460-22 2 Judgment
3. On perusing the writ petition and the documents filed alongwith it
as well as the reply filed on behalf of the respondents it becomes clear
that the petitioner had responded to the notice dated 23.03.2022 and its
reply is dated 31.03.2022. Before passing the order under Section
148A(d) of the Act of 1961 it is necessary to obtain approval of the
Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax. The record indicates that
such approval though stated to be obtained the impugned order has been
passed at 10.41 p.m. This indicates that the reply filed by the petitioner
to the notice has not been taken into consideration especially in view of
the fact that such reply was filed on 31.03.2022.
4. We find that a somewhat similar question was considered by this
Court in Writ Petition No. 2154 of 2022 [Samadha Corporation
(Partnership Firm) Versus Income Tax Officer, Ward No.5(3), Nagpur &
Another] decided on 20.09.2022. Given the aforesaid facts, we are of the
view that the impugned order passed under Section 148A(d) of the Act of
1961 has been issued without considering the petitioner's reply inasmuch
as paragraph 1 of the said order records that the petitioner failed to
submit its explanation. In view of aforesaid the impugned order dated
31.03.2022 passed under Section 148A(d) of the Act of 1961 is set aside.
The respondents are at liberty to take further steps in accordance with
law and as permissible under the said Act.
WP 5460-22 3 Judgment
5. The writ petition is disposed of in aforesaid terms. Rule
accordingly. No costs.
(M.W. CHANDWANI, J.) (A.S. CHANDURKAR, J.)
APTE
Signed By: Digitally signed
byROHIT DATTATRAYA
APTE
Signing Date:17.10.2022 18:29
