High Court of Delhi was dealing with the petition filed challenging the notice dated 31stMarch, 2021 issued by respondent no.2 under Section 148 of Income Tax Act, 1961.
Petitioner’s Contention:
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the approval/sanction by the Additional CIT, supplied by the NFAC, has been issued manually, without DIN and bears manual signatures, and as such should be treated as invalid. In support of his contention, he relies upon the Circular dated issued by Central Board of Direct Taxes. He further stated that sanction granted by the sanctioning authority under Section 151 of the Act has been granted by applying Section 147(b) of the Act, which has been repealed by Direct Tax Laws (Amendment) Act, 1987. It was submitted that neither the approval nor sanction bears any date.
Respondent’s Contention:
Learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed as the petitioner has not filed any objection prior to the filing the present writ petition.
HC’s Observations:
After hearing both the sides Court stated that the present writ petition is not maintainable inasmuch as the petitioner has not followed the procedure laid down in GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. vs. Income Tax Officer, prior to the filing of present writ petition. It is pertinent to mention that in the said judgment, it has been held by the Supreme Court that if an assessee is aggrieved by a reassessment notice, he is entitled to file objections before the Assessing Officer, who is bound to dispose of the same by way of a speaking order. HC opined that since the alternative effective remedy has not been resorted to, the present writ petition is not maintainable.
HC Held:
After evaluating submissions made by both the parties the Court held that “though in the instant case, the petitioner has written a letter in response to the reasons received by it, yet it has not filed any objections. In fact, in the said letter, a Power of Attorney, copy of ITR, Bank statement have only been enclosed and no specific objection has been raised. Further, this Court is of the view that the judgment of the Gujarat High Court is not applicable to the facts of the present case. In any event, it is not open to a High Court to distinguish a judgment of the Apex Court especially when the latter is clear and categorical. Consequently, this Court is in agreement with the preliminary objection raised by the learned counsel for the respondent-revenue that the present writ petition is premature.”
Case Title: Sita Ram v. ITO, Ward-67 (1) Delhi & Ors.
Bench: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Manmohan Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma
Citation: W.P.(C) 4039/2022
Decided on: 24th March, 2022
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
