Rajib Saha v. Income Tax Officer, Ward 10(1) & Anr

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J.: (ORAL)

CM APPL. 31209/2023

¶1Allowed, subject to just exceptions. W.P.(C) 8109/2023 and CM APPL. 31208/2023[Application filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking interim relief]

¶2Issue notice.

2.1 Mr Shlok Chandra, learned senior standing counsel, who appears on behalf of the respondents/revenue, accepts notice.

¶3Given the directions that we propose to pass, Mr Chandra says, that he does not wish to file a counter-affidavit in the matter, and he will argue the matter based on the record presently available with the Court.

3.1 Therefore, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is taken up for hearing and final disposal, at this stage itself.

¶4The petitioner, via this writ petition has assailed the notice dated

25.04.2023 issued under Section 179 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short, "Act"]. This notice seeks to recover the demand which is outstanding against a company going by the name Gisil Designs Pvt. Ltd. (GDPL) concerning Assessment Year (AY) 2008-09. It is not disputed, that the petitioner is one of the Directors of GDPL.

¶5Mr Satyen Sethi, learned counsel, who appears on behalf of the petitioner, says that against the assessment order qua which recovery is sought to be made vis-à-vis the petitioner, an appeal has been lodged before the appellate authority as far back as in 2013, which has not been adjudicated up until now.

5.1 Furthermore, Mr Sethi informs us, that a response has been filed with respect to the aforementioned show-cause notice.

5.2 Mr Sethi, however, says that, inadvertently, the reply, which is dated

11.05.2023, has not been placed on record. We have, however, been shown a hard copy of the reply dated 11.05.2023.

¶6Given this position, at this stage, we are not inclined to interdict the proceedings. The concerned officer is, however, directed to adjudicate the show-cause notice dated 25.04.2023. In case the decision rendered by the concerned officer is adverse to the interests of the petitioner, the same shall not be given effect to, for a period of four weeks from the date of the said order being served on the petitioner.

¶7Needless to add, the petitioner will have liberty to take recourse to an appropriate remedy against such a decision. Before the AO proceeds further, he will accord personal hearing to the petitioner and/or his authorized representative. For this purpose, a notice shall be issued, indicating the date and time of hearing.

¶8The writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

¶9Consequently, pending application shall also stand closed.

¶10Parties will act based on the digitally signed copy of the order.

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

GIRISH KATHPALIA, J

JUNE 1, 2023/ tr

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision: 01.06.2023 + W.P.(C) 8109/2023 RAJIB SAHA ..... Petitioner Through: Mr Satyen Sethi, Advocate. versus INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 10(1) & ANR. ..... Respondents Through: Mr Shlok Chandra, Sr. Standing Counsel with Ms Priya Sarkar, Jr. Standing Counsel. CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA [Physical Hearing/Hybrid Hearing (as per request)]