# NABCO Prod. Pvt. Ltd., Delhi v. Union of India & Ors

- **Citation:** (2022) 8 ILRA 575
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-08-03
- **Case number:** Writ Tax No. 997 of 2022
- **Bench:** Surya Prakash Kesarwani, Jayant Banerji
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/nabco-prod-pvt-ltd-delhi-v-union-of-india-ors-48917
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

A. Tax Law - Violation of principles of
natural justice - Income Tax Act, 1961-
Sections 148 & 148A(d) - The system has
been introduced and is being implemented by
the respondents and, therefore, it is their
primary duty to immediately remove short
comings, if any, in the system. For own
wrongs of the respondents, the assessee
can not be allowed to suffer and put to
harassment.
Prevailing
state
of
affairs
clearly reflects that in the absence of any
effective system of accountability of the
erring
officers,
the
harassment
of
the
assessees and breach of principles of natural
justice
by
the
Officers
is
resulting
in
uncontrolled
situation.
The
practice
of
frequently violating principles of natural
justice, non consideration of replies of
assessees under one pretext or the other or
rejecting it with one or two lines orders
without recording reasons for rejection, is
gradually increasing which needs to be taken
care of immediately by the respondents at the
highest level, otherwise prevailing situation of
arbitrary approach and breach of principles of
natural justice may not only adversely affect
the assessees who pay revenue to the
Government,
but
also
may
develop
a
perception amongst people/assessees that it
is difficult to get justice from the authorities
in statutory proceedings. (Para 7)

Writ petition allowed. (E-4)

Present petition assails orders dated
30.03.2022 and 06.06.2022, passed by
Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(3)(1), Kanpur.

## Text

8 All. NABCO Prod. Pvt. Ltd., Delhi Vs. Union of India & Ors.
575
right or title by any court. Both the Courts
below have given concurrent findings of
facts against the plaintiffs appellants.

12. For all the reasons stated above, in
my considered opinion, no substantial
question of law arises from the pleadings of
the parties in this second appeal filed by the
plaintiffs appellants. It is accordingly,
dismissed.
----------
(2022) 8 ILRA 575
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 03.08.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SURYA PRAKASH
KESARWANI, J.
THE HON'BLE JAYANT BANERJI, J.

Writ Tax No. 997 of 2022

NABCO Prod. Pvt. Ltd., Delhi ...Petitioner
Versus
Union of India & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Abhinav Mehrotra, Sri Satya Vrata Mehrotra

Counsel for the Respondents:
A.S.G.I., Sri Gaurav Mahajan (Senior S.C.), Sri
Sudarshan Singh

A. Tax Law - Violation of principles of
natural justice - Income Tax Act, 1961-
Sections 148 & 148A(d) - The system has
been introduced and is being implemented by
the respondents and, therefore, it is their
primary duty to immediately remove short
comings, if any, in the system. For own
wrongs of the respondents, the assessee
can not be allowed to suffer and put to
harassment.
Prevailing
state
of
affairs
clearly reflects that in the absence of any
effective system of accountability of the
erring
officers,
the
harassment
of
the
assessees and breach of principles of natural
justice
by
the
Officers
is
resulting
in
uncontrolled
situation.
The
practice
of
frequently violating principles of natural
justice, non consideration of replies of
assessees under one pretext or the other or
rejecting it with one or two lines orders
without recording reasons for rejection, is
gradually increasing which needs to be taken
care of immediately by the respondents at the
highest level, otherwise prevailing situation of
arbitrary approach and breach of principles of
natural justice may not only adversely affect
the assessees who pay revenue to the
Government,
but
also
may
develop
a
perception amongst people/assessees that it
is difficult to get justice from the authorities
in statutory proceedings. (Para 7)

Writ petition allowed. (E-4)

Present petition assails orders dated
30.03.2022 and 06.06.2022, passed by
Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(3)(1), Kanpur.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Surya Prakash
Kesarwani, J. & Hon'ble Jayant Banerji, J.)

1. Heard Sri Abhinav Mehrotra,
learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri
Sudarshan Singh, learned counsel for the
respondent no.1 and Sri Gaurav Mahajan,
learned Senior Standing Counsel for the
respondent nos. 2 & 3.

2. This writ petition has been filed
praying for the following reliefs :

"a) To issue a writ, order or direction
in the nature of CERTIORARI quashing the
IMPUGNED
ORDER
Dt.
30.03.2022
passed u/s 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act,
1961 by the Respondent No. 2;

b) To issue a writ, order or direction in
the nature of CERTIORARI quashing the
IMPUGNED
ORDER
Dt.
06.06.2022
passed u/s 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961
by the Respondent No. 2;

c) To issue a writ, order or direction in
the nature of CERTIORARI quashing the
576 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
IMPUGNED Notice Dt. 30.03.2022 u/s 148
of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the
Respondent No. 2."

3. On 26.07.2022 and 02.08.2022, this
Court passed the following orders :

"26.07.2022

Heard Sri Abhinav Mehrotra, learned
counsel for the petitioner, Sri Sudarshan
Singh, learned counsel for the respondent
No.1 and Sri Gaurav Mahajan, learned
Senior Standing Counsel for the respondent
Nos.2 and 3.

This writ petition has been filed
praying for the following relief:

"a) To issue a writ, order or direction
in the nature of CERTIORARI quashing the
IMPUGNED
ORDER
Dt.
30.03.2022
passed u/s 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act,
1961 by the Respondent No.2;

b) To issue a writ, order or direction in
the nature of CERTIORARI quashing the
IMPUGNED
ORDER
Dt.
06.06.2022
passed u/s 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961
by the Respondent No.2;

c) To issue a writ, order or direction in
the nature of CERTIORARI quashing the
IMPUGNED Notice Dt. 30.03.2022 u/s 148
of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the
Respondent No.2;"

Prima
facie,
from
perusal
of
Annexure-3 to the writ petition, it appears
that the petitioner has submitted a reply to
the notice under clause (b) of Section of
Section 148A of the Act, 1961 dated
22.03.2022. The reply was submitted on
29.03.2022. However, the impugned order
under Section 148A(d) has been passed on
the ground that no reply has been
submitted.
The
application
for
rectification of the mistake submitted by
the petitioner under Section 154 of the
Act, 1961 has been rejected on the ground
that no reply was received.

The petitioner has filed a copy of
screen-shot of uploading his reply dated
29.03.2022, which appears at page 25 of
the writ petition. Thus, the impugned order
passed by the respondents, prima facie
appears to be erroneous.

Sri Gaurav Mahajan, learned counsel
for the respondent Nos.2 and 3 prays for
and is granted a week's time to file short
counter affidavit in which the respondents
shall specifically state as to whether
petitioner has submitted reply dated
29.03.2022 and whether it is available on
the portal.

As an interim measure, it is provided
that the impugned notice under Section 148
and the impugned order under Section
148A(d) of the Act, 1961, shall be kept in
abeyance till the next fixed.

02.08.2022

Heard Shri Abhinav Mehrotra, learned
counsel for the petitioner and Shri Gaurav
Mahajan, learned Senior Standing Counsel
for the respondent nos.2 and 3.

An order under Section 148-A(d) of
the Income Tax Act, 1961 has been passed
by the respondent no.2, prima facie,
without consideration to the reply dated
29.03.2022 filed by the petitioner and the
assessee's application under Section 154 of
the Act, 1961 has also been rejected in the
same manner.

Despite order of the Court dated
26.07.2022, the respondent nos. 2 and 3
are not filing even short counter affidavit.

Therefore, we direct the respondent
nos.2 and 3 to file short counter affidavit
by tomorrow, failing which both the
respondents
shall
remain
personally
present before this Court on 03.08.2022
and shall show cause.

Put up as a fresh case before the
appropriate Bench tomorrow, i.e., on
03.08.2022 at 10:00 a.m."
8 All. NABCO Prod. Pvt. Ltd., Delhi Vs. Union of India & Ors.
577

4. Today, a short counter affidavit on
behalf of the respondent nos. 2 & 3, dated
03.08.2022 has been filed. In paragraph
nos. 4, 5 an d 6 of the aforesaid short
counter affidavit, the respondent nos. 2
and 3 have stated as under :

"4. That at the same time the
answering respondents are not in a
position to / cannot deny the system
generated
e-proceedings
response
Acknowledgment dated 29.03.2022 issued
to the petitioner vide Acknowledgement
No. 469506221290322 by which the
petitioner submits that it had e-filed its
reply dated 29.03.2022 as has been
annexed alongwith the Writ Petition.

5.
That
since
the
reply
dated
29.03.2022 of the petitioner was not
reflecting in the case history/notings
maintained digitally on the ITBA Portal of
PAN AAFCA8426N of
the
petitioner
assessee as accessed by the Respondent No.
2 on the date of passing of the order as
such the Respondent No. 2, under the
circumstances, had passed the order dated
30.03.2022 issued under Clause (d) of
Section 148-A of the Act and the
Rectification Application filed u/s 154 of
the Act was also decided under the same
circumstances.
6. That under the circumstances as
enumerated in the preceding paragraphs
the
answering
respondents
most
respectfully admit that the orders dated
30.03.2022 and 06.06.2022 impugned in
the Writ Petition have been passed without
considering the reply of the petitioner
dated 29.03.2022 which was placed before
the respondent no. 2 alongwith the
Application filed u/s 154 of the Act by the
petitioner."

5. Thus, from the facts as admitted in
the short counter affidavit it is undisputed
that the impugned order has been passed by
the respondents arbitrarily and in gross
violation of the principles of natural justice.
Therefore, the impugned order dated
30.03.2022 under Section 148 A(d) and the
impugned order dated 06.06.2022 under
Section 154 of the Act, 1961 both passed
by the respondent no.2 and the impugned
notice dated 30.03.2022 under Section 148
of the Act, 1961, can not be sustained and
are hereby quashed.

6. We are frequently coming across
cases where Income Tax Authorities are
giving complete go by to the principles of
natural justice. The excuse orally being set
up usually by the departmental counsels is
that there is some problem in the
computerisation system which is solely
controlled by the respondent no.1 i.e. the
Central Board of Direct Taxes, New Delhi,
and they can not, at their own, correct the
system.

7. Be as it may, the system has been
introduced and is being implemented by the
respondents and, therefore, it is their
primary duty to immediately remove short
comings, if any, in the system. For own
wrongs of the respondents, the assessee can
not be allowed to suffer and put to
harassment. Prevailing state of affairs
clearly reflects that in the absence of any
effective system of accountability of the
erring officers, the harassment of the
assessees and breach of principles of
natural justice by the Officers is resulting in
uncontrolled situation. The practice of
frequently violating principles of natural
justice, non consideration of replies of
assessees under one pretext or the other or
rejecting it with one or two lines orders
without recording reasons for rejection, is
gradually increasing which needs to be
taken
care
of
immediately
by
the
578 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
respondents at the highest level, otherwise
prevailing situation of arbitrary approach
and breach of principles of natural justice
may not only adversely affect the assessees
who pay revenue to the Government, but
also may develop a perception amongst
people/assessees that it is difficult to get
justice from the authorities in statutory
proceedings.

8. For all the reasons aforestated, the
impugned order and the notice as aforesaid
are quashed. Liberty is granted to the
respondents to pass an order afresh under
Section 148A(d) of the Act 1961 after
affording reasonable opportunity of hearing
to the petitioner. The respondent no.1 is
directed to take forthwith all required steps
to remove shortcomings in the system and
to develop a system of accountability of
erring officers/employees.

9. The writ petition is allowed to the
extent indicated above, with cost of Rs.
50,000/- which the respondents shall pay to
the petitioner within two weeks by an
account payee bank draft or RTGS.
----------
(2022) 8 ILRA 578
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 24.05.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. MANJU RANI
CHAUHAN, J.

Civil Misc. Review Application No. 40 of 2022
in Writ A No. 38386 of 2017

Anil Kumar ...Petitioner
Versus
Union of India & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Tejasvi Misra

Counsel for the Respondents:
Ms. Shruti Malviya

A. Civil Procedure Code - O. 47 R. 1 -
Review - Scope - Apparent error - Any
other sufficient ground - Writ petition was
decided in term of Dharmendra Kumar's
case, wherein the ground for rejecting the
candidature
was
the
suppression
of
material facts regarding pendency of a
criminal
case,
whereas
the
case
of
applicant-petitioner stands on different
footing that he had no knowledge about
his criminal case - Held, non-disclosure or
suppression of material facts would be
covered in the category of 'any other
sufficient cause', which furnishes a good
ground for review and is wide enough to
include such a cause - Held further, the
case of the petitioner stands on a better
and
different
footings
from
that
of
Dharmendra Kumar's case, hence the
impugned
judgment
is
liable
to
be
reviewed and recalled - High Court
remanded
the
matter
back
to
the
authority for fresh decision to be taken in
the light of Avtar Singh's case and Pawan
Kumar's case. (Para 27, 28, 33, 36 and 37)
Writ petition allowed. (E-1)
List of Cases cited:-
1. Avtar Singh Vs U.O.I. & ors.; 2016(8) SCC
471
2. Nandkishore Lalbhai Mehta Vs New Era
Fabrics P.Ltd.& Ors; (2015) 9 SCC 755
3. Special Appeal No. 2435 of 2011; Rama Kant
Prasad & ors. Vs U.O.I. & ors. decided on
07.01.2013
4. Special Appeal No. 153 of 2019; Tej Bahadur
Yadav Vs U.O.I. & ors. decided on 22.09.2021
5. Kamlesh Verma Vs Mayawati; (2013) 8 SCC
320
6. Perry Kansagra Vs Smriti Madan Kansagra;
(2019) 20 SCC 753
7. Special Appeal No. 147 of 2016; St. of U.P. &
ors. Vs Shyam Lal 425 (S.S) 2011 decided on
05.08.2021