Jai Prakash Jaiswal v. Union of India Thru. Secy. Ministry of Finance , New Delhi and Others

Allahabad HC8 Aug 2024WTAX/196/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court heard a petition challenging notices under Sections 148 and 148A of the Income-tax Act issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes. Relying on recent High Court directions, the Court restrained the authorities from passing a final order under Section 142 pending further arguments.

What did the court decide?

No final order to be passed under Section 142 of the Income-tax Act until the next date of listing.

Jai Prakash Jaiswal vs Union of India Thru. Secy… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 3

¶2

Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 196 of 2024

¶3

Petitioner :- Jai Prakash Jaiswal Respondent :- Union Of India Thru. Secy. Ministry Of Finance , New Delhi And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Aftab Ahmad Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,Kushagra Dikshit

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J. Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Dr. Ravi Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the opposite party no.1 and Sri Neerav Chitravanshi, Advocate alongwith Sri Kushagra Dixit, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 and 3.

¶6

This writ petition has been filed with the following main prayer:-

¶7

" i. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 28.03.2024 passed by the opposite party no.2 as well as notice dated 28.03.2024 issued under Section 148 by the opposite party no.2, contained in annexure no.4 & 5 respectively to this writ petition and notice issued under Section 142(1) dated 03.07.2024 contained in annexure no.9 to this writ petition as well as the proceedings being taken in consequences thereof by the opposite party no.3. "

¶8

It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is the proprietor of a firm, namely, M/s Om Construction, Lucknow and is involved in execution of work contract awarded by the certain departments of Government of Uttar Pradesh. The petitioner's firm filed his Income Tax Return's regularly. The Income Tax Return filed for assessment year 2017-18 and financial year 2016-17 was accepted, however, on 06.03.2024, the petitioner was served a notice issued by the opposite party no. 2 under Clause (b) of Section 148A. The petitioner submitted his reply and also requested to withdraw such notice

¶9

and not to proceed further against the petitioner. However, the reply has not been considered in its right prospective and the opposite party no. 2 has issued an order under Section 148A(d) and also Section 148 notice for initiated proceedings for reassessment of alleged escaped income on the same day i.e. on 28.03.2024. Such notices have been challenged by the petitioner on the ground that they have been issued without jurisdiction and he has placed reliance upon a Division Bench Judgement of the Bombay High Court in Writ Petition No. 1778 of 2023, 'Hexaware Technologies Limited Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and Others', decided on 03.05.2024 and also a judgement of the Bombay High Court in Writ Petition No. 3711 of 2023, 'Venus Jewel Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and Another', decided on 02.07.2024.

¶10

Learned counsel for the respondents no. 2 & 3 has placed reliance upon an order passed by the Calcutta High Court in the case of Triton Overseas (P.) Ltd. Vs. Union of India decided on 13.09.2023 wherein the Court has observed that the ground taken for challenge on the basis of jurisdictional assessment order using jurisdiction to reopen assessment only because of National Faceless Assessment Center has issued some guidelines and circular is a hyper-technical ground, since mode of service does not effect the contents and merits of the notice, and issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act is justifiable and sustainable in law in view of the Office Memorandum dated 20.02.2023 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes.

¶11

Learned counsel for the respondents no.2 & 3 has also informed of an order passed by the Telangana High Court which has been challenged in a Special Leave Petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court which is to the same effect.

¶12

List and connect alongwith Writ Tax No. 127 of 2024, 'Smt. Pushpa Saini vs. Union of India and Others', on 08.08.2024.

¶13

In the meantime, pleadings be exchanged

¶14

between the parties.

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioner is apprehensive that final assessment order will be passed.

¶16

It is directed that till the next date of listing, although proceedings may go on and the petitioner may participate, but no final order be passed under Section 142 of the Income Tax.

¶17

Order Date :- 30.7.2024 Darpan Sharma

¶18

Digitally signed by :- DARPAN SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Jai Prakash Jaiswal v. Union of India Thru. Secy. Ministry of Finance , New Delhi and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jai Prakash Jaiswal v. Union of India Thru. Secy. Ministry of Finance , New Delhi and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Babulal vs State Bank of India , Alambagh , Lko. Thru. Authorised Officer / Branch Manager and Others

Chhatrapal Maurya vs the State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Ministry of Panchayat Raj , Lko. and Others

Mohana and Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Social Welafre , Civil Secrt. Lko. and Others

Ram Lal Prajapati vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Revenue U.P. Lko. and Others

Ketki vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Energy Lko. U.P. and 3 Others

Manju Lata vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Forest Deptt. Lko. and Others