Delhi High Court Dismisses Tax Evasion Petition – Meager Amount Involved
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.
