VEENA MADAN  Vs INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD 28(2) & ANR. -Judgment by Delhi High Court

$~120
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 6670/2022 & CM APPLs.20240-20241/2022
VEENA MADAN ….. Petitioner Through: Mr. Manuj Sabharwal, Advocate.
versus
INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD 28(2) & ANR. ….. Respondents Through: Mr. Shailendra Singh, Advocate.
% Date of Decision: 27th April, 2022
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SHARMA
JUDGMENT
MANMOHAN, J (Oral):
1.
Present Writ Petition has been filed challenging the assessment order dated 7th December, 2019 passed under Section 147 read with 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short �Act�), the penalty orders dated 15th March, 2022 passed under Section 271(1)(c), 271(1)(b) and 271F of the Act for the Assessment Year 2012-13.

2.
A perusal of the paper book reveals that petitioner has already filed an appeal before the CIT(A) challenging the impugned assessment order. Consequently, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned assessment order in the writ jurisdiction.

3.
Since the time period for filing the appeal to challenge the penalty

W.P.(C) 6670/2022 Page 1 of 2

orders has expired, this Court permits the petitioner to file an appeal before the appellate authority challenging the penalty orders within two weeks. In the event, the said appeal is filed within two weeks, the same shall not be dismissed on the ground of limitation.
4.
The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) is directed to decide the appeals filed by the petitioner as expeditiously as possible preferably within six months.

5.
With the aforesaid direction, the present writ petition and application stand disposed of. This Court clarifies that it has not commented on the merits of the controversy. The rights and contentions of all the parties are left open.

MANMOHAN, J
DINESH KUMAR SHARMA, J APRIL 27, 2022 AS
W.P.(C) 6670/2022 Page 2 of 2