Delhi High Court – Orders
Vipul Goel vs Income Tax Officer Ward 34 5 Delhi on 17 December, 2024
Author: Vibhu Bakhru
Bench: Tushar Rao Gedela, Vibhu Bakhru
$~82
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 13659/2024 & CM APPL. 57250/2024
VIPUL GOEL .....Petitioner
Through: Appearance not given
versus
INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 34 5 DELHI .....Respondent
Through:
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA
ORDER
% 17.12.2024
1. The petitioner has filed the present petition inter alia praying as
under:-
“(i) Issue writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing Order
under Section 148A(d) of the Act dated 31.08.2024 (Annexure P-
4) and Notice issued under Section 148 of the act dated
31.08.2024 (Annexure P-5) by the Respondent being illegal and
contrary to the provisions of the Income tax Act, 1961; for
assessment year 2018-19.”
2. The principal ground on which the petitioner has challenged the
notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter the Act) is
that the same is issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO).
According to the petitioner, the said JAO did not have the jurisdiction to
issue the said notice in view of the notification dated 29.03.2022 issued by
Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) for framing the e-Assessment of
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 23/12/2024 at 21:26:58
Income Escaping Assessment Scheme, 2022. The petitioner also claims that
he did not have sufficient opportunity to respond to the notice dated
18.08.2024 issued under Section 148A(b) of the Act.
3. Insofar as the petitioner’s challenge regarding the jurisdiction of the
Assessing Officer (AO) is concerned, the said issue stands covered against
the petitioner by a decision of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in T.K.S.
Builders Pvt. Ltd V. Income Tax Officer Ward 25(3); Neutral Citation No.
2024:DHC:8330-DB.
4. Insofar as the petitioner’s contention that he had not been afforded
sufficient time to file the response to the notice issued under Section
148A(d) of the Act is concerned, the said contention is unmerited. The
petitioner was granted seven days’ time to respond to the said notice as
stipulated under Section 148A(b) of the Act.
5. It is also pertinent to note that the petitioner had sought further three
days’ time by a letter dated 26.08.2024 for filing a response to the said
notice. However, he had failed file a response within the said period as well.
6. The impugned order under Section 148A(d) of the Act was passed on
31.08.2024 and the petitioner had not filed his response till the said date.
7. In view of the above, the present petition is dismissed.
VIBHU BAKHRU, ACJ
TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J
DECEMBER 17, 2024
Aj
Click here to check corrigendum, if any
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 23/12/2024 at 21:26:58