Sangita Devi v. The Union of India, New Delhi / The Commissioner, Muzaffarpur / The Income-tax Officer, Ward 3(5), Madhubani
[Citation -2020-LL-1016-30]

Citation 2020-LL-1016-30
Appellant Name Sangita Devi
Respondent Name The Union of India, New Delhi / The Commissioner, Muzaffarpur / The Income-tax Officer, Ward 3(5), Madhubani
Court HIGH COURT OF PATNA
Relevant Act Income-tax
Date of Order 16/10/2020
Assessment Year 2017-18
Judgment View Judgment
Keyword Tags unexplained income • penalty proceeding • books of accounts • business activity • statutory appeal • cash deposited
Bot Summary: ITBA/AST/S/143(3)/2019- 20/1023551980(1) dated 31.12.2019 passed by the Respondent Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(5) Madhubani, whereby and where under Rs.23,65,700/- has been treated to be unexplained income under section 69 of the Income Tax Act 1961 and added back to the total Patna High Court CWJC No.3915 of 2020 dt.16-10-2020 2/8 income of the petitioner and a penalty proceeding under section 271AAC of the Income Tax Act 1961 has been initiated against the petitioner. ITBA/AST/S/156/2019-20/1023552010 dated 31.12.2019 passed by the Respondent Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(5) Madhubani whereby and where under a demand of Rs.25,46,485/- has been raised against the petitioner under Section 156 of the Income Tax Act 1961. ITBA/PNL/S/271AAC 2019-20/1023555250 dated 31.12.2019 issued by the Respondent Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(5) Madhubani under section 274 read with 271 AAC of the Income Tax Act 1961, where by and where under a penalty proceeding has been initiated against the petitioner for income determined to be chargeable. ITBA/PNL/S/270A/2019-20/102355 9607(1) dated 01.01.2020 issued by the Respondent Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(5) Madhubani under section 274 read with 270A of the Income Tax Act 1961, where by and where under a penalty proceeding has been initiated against the petitioner for income determined to be chargeable. Patna High Court CWJC No.3915 of 2020 dt.16-10-2020 4/8 One of the impugned orders is reproduced hereunder:- Patna High Court CWJC No.3915 of 2020 dt.16-10-2020 5/8 Patna High Court CWJC No.3915 of 2020 dt.16-10-2020 6/8 Shri Avinash Shekhar, learned counsel for the petitioner, argues that the order passed is cryptic in nature as also the Officer has not assigned any reason for carrying out re- assessment in the case of the petitioner. Shri Rishi Raj Sinha, learned counsel for the Income Tax Department, states that if an appeal is preferred within a period of four weeks from today, the issue of limitation shall neither be raised nor allowed to come in the way of adjudication of the appeal on merits, more so keeping in view current Pandemic Covid-19. Shri Rishi Raj Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the Income Tax Department, states that as on date no coercive action stands taken against the petitioner in terms of the demand raised pursuant to the passing of the impugned order and that position would be allowed to be maintained if the petitioner were to file an appeal within a period of four weeks from today.


IN HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3915 of 2020 Sangita Devi wife of Sanjeet Kumar resident of Village Ward No 1, Laheriyaganj, PO and P.S. Madhubani, District Madhubani. Petitioner/s Versus 1. Union of India through Secretary, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Revenue, North Block, New Delhi- 110001. 2. Commissioner, Office of Income Tax Commissioner, Income Tax Office, Bela Kothi, Bela Industrial Estate, Ramkrishna Ashram Road, Muzaffarpur- 842005. 3. Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(5), Office of Income Tax Officer, Income Tax Department, Madhubani. Respondent/s Appearance : For Petitioner/s : Mr.Suraj Samdarshi, Advocate Mr.Avinash Shekhar, Advocate For Respondent/s : Mr.Dr.K.N.Singh, ASG Mr.Anshuman Singh, CGC Mr.Rishi Raj Sinha, Advocate CORAM: HONOURABLE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. KUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE CHIEF JUSTICE) Date : 16-10-2020 Petitioner has prayed for following relief(s):- (i) To issue appropriate writ, order or direction in nature of certiorari for quashing assessment order no.ITBA/AST/S/143(3)/2019- 20/1023551980(1) dated 31.12.2019 passed by Respondent Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(5) Madhubani, whereby and where under Rs.23,65,700/- has been treated to be unexplained income under section 69 (A) of Income Tax Act 1961 and added back to total Patna High Court CWJC No.3915 of 2020 dt.16-10-2020 2/8 income of petitioner and penalty proceeding under section 271AAC of Income Tax Act 1961 has been initiated against petitioner. (ii) To issue further appropriate writ, order or direction in nature of certiorari for quashing order no.ITBA/AST/S/156/2019-20/1023552010 (1) dated 31.12.2019 passed by Respondent Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(5) Madhubani whereby and where under demand of Rs.25,46,485/- has been raised against petitioner under Section 156 of Income Tax Act 1961. (iii) To issue further appropriate writ, order or direction in nature of certiorari for quashing notice no. ITBA/PNL/S/271AAC (1) 2019-20/1023555250 (1) dated 31.12.2019 issued by Respondent Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(5) Madhubani under section 274 read with 271 AAC (1) of Income Tax Act 1961, where by and where under penalty proceeding has been initiated against petitioner for income determined to be chargeable. (iv) To issue further appropriate writ, order or direction in nature of certiorari for quashing notice no.ITBA/PNL/S/270A/2019-20/102355 9607(1) dated 01.01.2020 issued by Respondent Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(5) Madhubani under section 274 read with 270A of Income Tax Act 1961, where by and where under penalty proceeding has been initiated against petitioner for income determined to be chargeable. (v) To issue further appropriate writ, order or direction in nature of mandamus commanding Respondents to refrain from taking any coercive action Patna High Court CWJC No.3915 of 2020 dt.16-10-2020 3/8 against petitioner pursuant to a) order no. ITBA/AST/S/143(3)/2019-20/1023551980(1) dated 31.12.2019; b) order no. ITBA/AST/S/156/2019- 20/1023552010 (1) dated 31.12.2019; c) notice no. ITBA/PNL/S/271AAC(1)2019 - 20/1023555250(1) dated 31.12.2019; and d) notice no.ITBA/PNL/S/270A/2019-20/102355 9607(1) dated 01.01.2020. (vi) This Hon ble Court may further adjudicate and hold that action of Respondent Income Tax Officer in rejecting explanation offered by petitioner is completely arbitrary exercise of authority/power vested in Respondents. (vii) This Hon ble Court may further adjudicate and hold that Respondent Income Tax Officer should have considered this aspect of matter that petitioner deposited case originating from business activity during demonetisation period. (viii) This Hon ble Court may further adjudicate and hold that presumption under section 69A of Income Tax act can be drawn only when assessee is found to be in possession of money, bullion, jewellery, etc., not recorded in his books of account. (ix) This Hon ble Court may further adjudicate and hold that since cash deposited in bank account has been duly accounted for in books of accounts, Respondent ITO could not have treated alleged deposit in Specified Bank Notes during demonetisation period as unexplained. (x) To grant any other relief or reliefs for which petitioner is found entitled in facts and circumstances of case. Patna High Court CWJC No.3915 of 2020 dt.16-10-2020 4/8 One of impugned orders is reproduced hereunder:- Patna High Court CWJC No.3915 of 2020 dt.16-10-2020 5/8 Patna High Court CWJC No.3915 of 2020 dt.16-10-2020 6/8 Shri Avinash Shekhar, learned counsel for petitioner, argues that order passed is cryptic in nature as also Officer has not assigned any reason for carrying out re- assessment in case of petitioner. Having perused same, we are of considered view that all material facts necessary for adjudication were recorded and considered by Officer and as such order cannot be said to be in violation of principles of natural justice, even though it may be short in nature. Since disputed questions of fact are raised before us, we Patna High Court CWJC No.3915 of 2020 dt.16-10-2020 7/8 refrain from adjudicating same, reserving liberty to petitioner to prefer statutory appeal which is equally efficacious remedy. As such, present petition stands disposed of. At this stage, learned counsel for petitioner submits that limitation may not come in way of adjudication of appeal. Shri Rishi Raj Sinha, learned counsel for Income Tax Department, states that if appeal is preferred within period of four weeks from today, issue of limitation shall neither be raised nor allowed to come in way of adjudication of appeal on merits, more so keeping in view current Pandemic Covid-19. Statement is accepted and taken on record. Shri Rishi Raj Sinha, learned counsel appearing for Income Tax Department, states that as on date no coercive action stands taken against petitioner in terms of demand raised pursuant to passing of impugned order and that position would be allowed to be maintained if petitioner were to file appeal within period of four weeks from today. Statement accepted and taken on record. No other submission is raised by either of parties. Patna High Court CWJC No.3915 of 2020 dt.16-10-2020 8/8 Interlocutory application, if any, shall also stand disposed of. (Sanjay Karol, CJ) ( S. Kumar, J) pallavi/- AFR/NAFR CAV DATE Uploading Date 20.10.2020 Transmission Date Sangita Devi v. Union of India, New Delhi / Commissioner, Muzaffarpur / Income-tax Officer, Ward 3(5), Madhubani
Report Error