Magistrate's Direction for Police Inquiry Under Section 202 CrPC Is Valid; Petitioner Must Await Investigation Outcome: Bombay High Court Dismisses Advocate's Petition as Premature    |     Tribunal’s Compensation Exceeding Claimed Amount Found Just and Fair Under Motor Vehicles Act: No Deduction Errors Warrant Reduction: Gujrat High Court    |     When Two Accused Face Identical Charges, One Cannot Be Convicted While the Other is Acquitted: Supreme Court Emphasizes Principle of Parity in Acquittal    |     Supreme Court Limits Interim Protection for Financial Institutions, Modifies Order on FIRs Filed by Borrowers    |     Kerala High Court Grants Regular Bail in Methamphetamine Case After Delay in Chemical Analysis Report    |     No Sign of Recent Intercourse; No Injury Was Found On Her Body Or Private Parts: Gauhati High Court Acquits Two In Gang Rape Case    |     Failure to Disclose Relationship with Key Stakeholder Led to Setting Aside of Arbitral Award: Gujarat High Court    |     Strict Compliance with UAPA's 7-Day Timeline for Sanctions is Essential:  Supreme Court    |     PAT Teachers Entitled to Regularization from 2014, Quashes Prospective Regularization as Arbitrary: Himachal Pradesh High Court    |     Punjab and Haryana High Court Upholds Anonymity Protections for Victims in Sensitive Cases: Right to Privacy Prevails Over Right to Information    |     Certified Copy of Will Admissible Under Registration Act, 1908: Allahabad HC Dismisses Plea for Production of Original Will    |     Injuries on Non-Vital Parts Do Not Warrant Conviction for Attempt to Murder: Madhya Pradesh High Court Modifies Conviction Under Section 307 IPC to Section 326 IPC    |     Classification Based on Wikipedia Data Inadmissible; Tribunal to Reassess Using Actual Financial Records: PH High Court Orders Reconsideration of Wage Dispute    |     Mere Delay in Initiation Does Not Justify Reduction of Damages: Jharkhand High Court on Provident Fund Defaults    |     Legatee Can Continue Suit Without Probate, But Decree Contingent on Probate Approval: Orissa High Court    |     An Award that Shocks the Conscience of the Court Cannot Stand, Especially When Public Money is Involved: Calcutta HC Reduces Quantum by Half    |     Trademark Transaction Within Territoriality Principle Subject to Indian Tax Laws: Bombay High Court Dismisses Hindustan Unilever's Petition on Non-Deduction of TDS    |     Concealment of Material Facts Bars Relief under Article 226: SC Reprimands Petitioners for Lack of Bonafides    |     Without Determination of the Will's Genuineness, Partition is Impossible: Supreme Court on Liberal Approach to Pleading Amendments    |     Candidates Cannot Challenge a Selection Process After Participating Without Protest : Delhi High Court Upholds ISRO's Administrative Officer Recruitment    |     Invalid Bank Guarantee Invocation Found Fatal to Recovery Claim: Delhi High Court Dismisses GAIL’s Appeal    |     Adverse Remarks in APAR Recorded Without Objectivity and Likely Motivated by Bias: Delhi High Court Quashes Biased APAR Downgrade of CRPF Officer    |    

Delhi High Court Dismisses Tax Evasion Petition - Meager Amount Involved

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a notable judgment delivered today, the Delhi High Court, comprising Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela, disposed of a writ petition concerning an alleged tax evasion case, highlighting the ‘meager amount involved’.

The petition, filed by Bholi Kumar against ITO Ward 51(1) Delhi & Anr., challenged the order and notice under sections 148 and 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner sought to quash the order dated 29.07.2022 and the subsequent notice regarding the alleged evasion of tax amounting to Rs. 12,800.

During the proceedings, the petitioner’s counsel, Mr. Nagesh Behl, emphasized that the income chargeable to tax that had supposedly escaped assessment did not exceed Rs. 12,800. This point was later acknowledged by the respondent’s counsel, representing the Revenue, who, after internal discussions, conceded to the nominal nature of the amount involved.

In their judgment, the bench stated, “we dispose of the present writ petition in terms of the fact that the Revenue does not wish to pursue the case on the ground that the amount is meager." This observation underlined the court's decision to not continue the proceedings due to the insignificant amount in question.

The judgment has raised discussion” among legal circles regarding the practicality and efficacy of pursuing legal action over relatively small amounts in tax disputes. While the petitioner’s prayers were addressed, the court left the broader questions of law open for future cases, potentially setting a precedent for similar cases.

The advocates representing the parties were Mr. Nagesh Behl for the petitioner and Mr. Abhishek Maratha, Senior Standing Counsel with Mr. Akshat Singh, Junior Standing Counsel for the respondents.

This judgment is seen as a reflection of the judiciary’s approach towards balancing legal rigor with practical considerations in matters involving nominal financial disputes.

Date of Decision: 09 November 2023

BHOLI  KUMAR VS ITO WARD 51(1) DELHI & ANR.   

 

Similar News