Delhi High Court
Ms. Seema Seth vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 39(4), ... on 10 September, 2021
$~13
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 10.09.2021
+ W.P.(C) 9101/2021 & CM APPLS. 28343/2021, 30570/2021
MS. SEEMA SETH ..... Petitioner
Through Mr.Rupesh Kumar, Ms. Neelam
Sharma, Ms. Pankhuri
Shrivastava, Mr. Pravesh
Bahuguna, Mr. Alekshendra
Sharma, Advs.
versus
INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 39(4), DELHI & ORS.
..... Respondents
Through Mr.Sanjay Kumar, Sr. SC and
Ms.Esha Kadian, Jr.SC for
Income Tax Deptt. with
Mr.Himanshu Adv.
Mr.Aman Malik, SPCGC for
R-3&5.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA
NAVIN CHAWLA, J. (Oral)
1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging
the notice dated 30.03.2019 issued to the petitioner under Section 148
of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') for
the assessment year 2014-15. The petitioner further prays for quashing
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHALOO BATRA
Location:
Signing Date:13.09.2021
of all the subsequent proceedings initiated against the petitioner
pursuant to the above notice.
2. Apart from contending that the impugned notice is beyond the
period of limitation prescribed under Section 153(2) of the Act, it was
also the case of the petitioner that the petitioner has not been served
with the assessment order dated 12.12.2019 purportedly passed by the
Assessing Officer against the petitioner under Section 143(3) read
with Section 147 of the Act.
3. The petition was first listed before this Court on 27.08.2021
when the learned counsel for the respondents who appeared on
advance notice screen shared the Assessment Order dated 12.12.2019
passed against the petitioner. He claimed that the said notice had been
sent to the petitioner by way of speed post. The learned counsel for the
respondents further produced the notice of demand under Section 156
of the Act dated 12.12.2019 as also a notice under Section 274 read
with Section 271 (1)(b) of the Act dated 18.12.2019 issued against the
petitioner.
4. On receipt of the above documents, the learned counsel for the
petitioner has now filed an application being CM APPL.
No.30570/2021 seeking permission to place additional documents on
record. In the application, it is contended by the learned counsel for
the petitioner that the consignment number by which the assessment
order is claimed to have been sent to the petitioner could not be
verified from the website of the Department of Post. It is further
contented that while the entire proceedings were conducted in form of
'E-proceedings', it is not discernable why the assessment order was
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHALOO BATRA
Location:
Signing Date:13.09.2021
sent through speed post, while no copy thereof was uploaded on the
portal of the Income Tax Department.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is a
doubt on the date when the assessment order was passed and the same
has been ante-dated. He submits that the assessment order would be
clearly barred by limitation.
6. In our opinion, as the issues raised by the petitioner involve
adjudication of the disputed questions of fact, they can be best agitated
in the form of an appeal provided under the Act.
7. As noted hereinabove, the primary grievance of the petitioner
was that the demand was being raised against the petitioner without
supplying her a copy of the assessment order. The same, however,
now stand supplied to the petitioner.
8. In view of the above, the present petition as well as pending
applications are dismissed granting liberty to the petitioner to avail of
her statutory remedies against the assessment order, if so advised.
9. It is made clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the
merit of the claims raised by either party in the present petition.
10. There shall be no order as to costs.
NAVIN CHAWLA, J
MANMOHAN, J
SEPTEMBER 10, 2021
RN/U.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHALOO BATRA
Location:
Signing Date:13.09.2021
