Dismissed

Vikram Kumar Saraf v. Union of India

Patna HC21 Jul 2023CWJC/3097/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Husband and wife challenged income tax reassessment notices issued on 01.04.2021 as barred by the six-year limitation in Section 149(1)(b). The court held the Supreme Court's COVID-19 extension of limitation saved the period, so the notices were within time. Writ petitions dismissed.

What did the court decide?

None; writ petitions dismissed and no interference with the Section 148 notices.

Vikram Kumar Saraf Vs Union of India — Income Tax | Patna HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

¶2

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3207 of 2022

¶3

======================================================

¶4

Abha Saraf Wife of Vikram Kumar Saraf Working for Gain at 56, Metcalf Street, 3rd Floor, Room No.3H, Kolkata-700013.

¶5

... ... Petitioner/s

¶6

Versus

¶7

Union of India Service through the Ministry of Finance, Central Board of Direct Taxes, Central Secretariat, North Block, New Delhi-110001 outside the Jurisdiction aforesaid.

¶8

Principle Commissioner of Income Tax, PCIT, Patna-1, Central Revenue Building, Birchand Patel Barg, Patna-800001 ([email protected])

¶9

Income Tax Officer, Ward No.-1(1), Bhagalpur, 3rd Floor,(above V2), RN Plaza, RBSS Sahay Road, Bhagalpur-812001 (e-mail [email protected]) Within the Jurisdiction aforesaid.

¶10

... ... Respondent/s

¶11

======================================================

¶12

with

¶13

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 3097 of 2022

¶14

======================================================

¶15

Vikram Kumar Saraf Son of Dinesh Kumar Saraf Working for gain at 56, Matcalf Street, 3rd Floor, Room No. 3H, Kolkata- 700013.

¶16

... ... Petitioner/s

¶17

Versus

¶18

Union of India Service through the Ministry of Finance, Central Board of Direct Taxes, Central Secretariat, North Block, New Delhi- 110001 outside the jurisdiction aforesaid.

¶19

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, PCIT, Patna-1, Central Revenue Building, Birchand Patel Marg, Patna- 800001 (e-mail - [email protected]) within the jurisdiction aforesaid.

¶20

Income Tax Officer, Ward No.- 1(1), Bhagalpur, 3rd Floor, (above V2), RN Plaza, RBSS Sahay Road, Bhagalpur- 812001 (e-mail - [email protected]) within the jurisdiction aforesaid.

¶21

Patna High Court CWJC No.3207 of 2022 dt.21-07-2023 2/4

¶22

... ... Respondent/s

¶23

======================================================

¶24

Appearance : (In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 3207 of 2022) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Parth Gaurav, Advocate For Income Tax : Mrs. Archana Sinha, Sr. SC For U.O.I. : Mr. Kumar Priya Ranjan, CGC Mr. Vibhuti Kumar, Advocate (In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 3097 of 2022) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Parth Gaurav, Advocate For Income Tax : Mrs. Archana Sinha, Sr. SC For U.O.I. : Mr. Kumar Priya Ranjan, CGC Mr. Vibhuti Kumar, Advocate

¶25

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY ORAL JUDGMENT

¶26

(Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) Date : 21-07-2023

¶27

The petitioners, husband and wife are before us challenging the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act,1961. The short contention raised is that it is issued beyond the limitation period as provided under the Income Tax Act, under Section 149 prior to the amendment brought in 2021. Section 149, which refers to time limit for notices, specifically by Clause (b) of sub-section (1) provides for six years from the end of the relevant assessment year, if the Assessing Officer does not have in his possession books of accounts or other documents or evidence, which revealed that income chargeable to tax represented in the form of escaped assessment amounts to or is likely to amount to Rs. 1,00,000/-(One lakh) or more. In

¶28

Patna High Court CWJC No.3207 of 2022 dt.21-07-2023 3/4

¶29

the present case, admittedly the notice issued is under Section 149 (1) (b) and the limitation is six years from the end of the relevant Assessment Year. The petitioners’ contention is that the notice was issued only on 01.04.2021, which is the date as specified in Annexure-4 to both the writ petitions.

¶30

Looking at the statutory provision, definitely it is six years from the last day of the relevant assessment year by which the limitation falls on 31.03.2020. However, we have to notice that due to the pandemic, the Hon’ble Supreme Court saved the limitation between 15.03.2020 and 28.02.2022 as per Suo Motu Writ Petition(C) No. 3 of 2020 Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, In Re; (2021) 5 SCC 452 . The date from which such saving commenced being 15.03.2020 was much prior to the expiry of the limitation period. The present notice issued on 01.04.2021 is also within the limitation period as saved by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Saving of limitation applies equally to individuals insofar as approaching the Courts or legal forums for redressal and also to the Departments, who are statutorily mandated to initiate proceedings within a specific time. The notice was issued well within the aforesaid period of limitation.

¶31

In such circumstances, we find absolutely no

¶32

Patna High Court CWJC No.3207 of 2022 dt.21-07-2023 4/4

¶33

reason to interfere with the notices issued.

¶34

The writ petitions would stand dismissed.

¶35

(K. Vinod Chandran, CJ)

¶36

(Partha Sarthy, J)

¶37

Anushka/-

¶38

AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE
Uploading Date	26.07.2023
Transmission Date

Vikram Kumar Saraf v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vikram Kumar Saraf v. Union of India

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

Similar cases

Nirmala Devi Vs The State of Bihar

Mahesh Kr. Agarwal @ Mahesh Ag Vs Dcit, Central Circle 4, Patna

Mahesh Kr. Agarwal @ Mahesh Ag Vs Dcit, Central Circle 4, Patna

Bhardwaj and Brothers Vs The State of Bihar

Abha Saraf Vs Union of India

Kashish Developers Limited, Vs The State of Bihar