Smt. Vidhya Nagdeo vs Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax
2022 Latest Caselaw 1090 Chatt

            HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                               Order Sheet
                           WPT No.37 of 2022
    Smt. Vidhya Nagdeo Versus Joint Commissioner of Income Tax



28/2/2022         Mr. Ankit Singhal, Advocate for the appellant.

                  Mrs. Naushina Afrin Ali, Advocate with Mr. Topilal Bareth &

            Mr. Ajay kumrani, Advocates on behalf of Mr. Amit Chaudhari for

            the respondents.

Heard.

During course of hearing, learned counsel for petitioner

raised different grounds with respect to non-compliance of the

provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961 prior to issuance of notice

under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as also of not

following the guidelines issued by the Income Tax Department

from time to time, particularly Instructions dated 10.1.2018

issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes. Placing reliance on

judgment of Bombay High Court dated 21.12.2021 in WP

No.3554/2019, Svitzer Hazira Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Asst.

Commissioner of Income Tax, and Commissioner of Income

Tax vs. S. Goyanka Lime and Chemicals Ltd. reported in 2014

SCC Online MP 4550 it is submitted that proceeding initiated be

quashed. He submits that in writ petition specific ground has

been taken by petitioner that there was no approval by the

Designated Authority prior to issuance of notice under Section

148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Approval stated to have been granted under Section 151 of the Income Tax Act does not bear

time, which is having relevance in view of facts pleaded in writ

petition that both documents i.e. approval and notice, have been

issued on the same date. At the time of raising objections to

notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, this

ground has been specifically pleaded and sought for copy of

approval, if any granted by the Designated Authority under

Section 151 of the Income Tax Act, but that has not been

supplied to the petitioner and the same has been supplied after

deciding objections only on 16.2.2022. In reply to this petition,

this pleading of petitioner has not been specifically denied or

controverted.

Learned counsel for respondent Department submits that

she may be granted short time to bring that specific fact on

record by way of additional submissions along with supporting

documents.

In view of above submission made by learned counsel for

the respondents, list this case on 07.03.2022.

Sd/-

(Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge

roshan/-