Delhi High Court
Hasina Nuruddin Jetpurwala vs The Assistant Commissioner Of ... on 27 July, 2022
$~26
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 11128/2022 & CM APPLs.32656-32657/2022
HASINA NURUDDIN JETPURWALA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sankalp Malik and Ms. Rudrali
Patil and Mr. Sanket Bora, Advocates
versus
THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
INTERNATIONAL TAX 2- 1 -2 DELHI AND ORS
..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar and Ms. Easha
Kadian, Advocates for Revenue.
Mr. N.K. Aggarwal, Advocate for
R-3/UOI
% Date of Decision: 27th July, 2022
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA
JUDGMENT
MANMOHAN, J (Oral):
1. Present writ petition has been filed challenging the assessment order
dated 25th May, 2022 for Financial Year 2016-2017 and all notices as well
as actions taken in pursuance thereto by the Respondents.
2. Learned counsel for the Petitioner states that between 31st March,
2022 and 9th February, 2022, the Respondents had issued notices to the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:JASWANT
SINGH RAWAT
Signing Date:28.07.2022
19:29:20
Petitioner at an incorrect and unrelated email address i.e.
[email protected]
3. He contends that the Respondents had erred in passing the impugned
assessment order without considering the submissions filed by the Petitioner
in her detailed reply within the time given by the draft assessment order
under Section 144C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'Act') dated 20th
March, 2022. He states that the assessee duly complied with the said notice,
despite there being no valid service of notices under Sections 148 and
142(1) as well as draft assessment order. He emphasises that the
Assessment order is a verbatim copy of the draft assessment order ignoring
the exhaustive reply filed by the Petitioner.
4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further states that even otherwise
the reasons given in the impugned order are factually incorrect as neither
any property was purchased by the assessee nor an amount of
Rs.12,60,23,440/- was paid as consideration in the said year.
5. He lastly states that the Petitioner was not obligated to follow the
route of filing the objections before the Dispute Resolution Mechanism
('DRP') and had in her reply dated 16th April, 2022 clarified that she will not
be filing any objections before the DRP and would be filing objections
before the Assessing Officer and would file an appeal before the
Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ['CIT(A)'] in the event she is
aggrieved.
6. Issue notice. Mr. Sanjay Kumar, learned counsel for the Revenue
accepts notice. He states that Petitioner would have full opportunity to urge
all her contentions and submissions before the appellate authority i.e.
CIT(A).
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:JASWANT
SINGH RAWAT
Signing Date:28.07.2022
19:29:20
7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view
that, in the present instance, there has been a violation of the principles of
natural justice. The replies filed by the Petitioner though available on the
portal of the Income Tax Department were not considered by the Assessing
Officer before passing the impugned order. On this short ground alone the
assessment order dated 25th May, 2022 for the Financial Year 2016-17,
demand notice issued under Section 156 of the Act and penalty notice issued
under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act are set aside and the matter is remanded
back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision within twelve weeks after
considering the replies filed by the Petitioner. With the aforesaid direction,
the present writ petition along with pending applications stands disposed of.
MANMOHAN, J
MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J
JULY 27, 2022
AS
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:JASWANT
SINGH RAWAT
Signing Date:28.07.2022
19:29:20
