Delhi HC Disposes Writ Petition on Income Tax Order, Grants Liberty for Revision

The Delhi High Court disposed of a writ petition seeking to quash an order under Section 179 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and stay recovery of demand. The court granted liberty to the petitioner to file a revision petition under Section 264, following similar orders in other directors' petitions. The respondent had no objection to this, and the court directed the concerned authority to consider the revision petition without rejecting it on limitation grounds. The judgment did not delve into the merits, leaving rights and contentions open for future consideration. All pending applications were closed, and parties were instructed to comply with the court's directives based on the digitally signed order.

---

---

Issues:
1. Writ petition seeking quashing of order under Section 179 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Stay on recovery of demand arising from the order.

Analysis:
The judgment delivered by the Delhi High Court involved a writ petition filed by Dr. Rakesh Gupta, an advocate representing the petitioner/assessee who is a director in a company named North Delhi Bullion Traders Pvt. Ltd. The petitioner sought a writ, direction, or order to quash the order dated 01.05.2019 passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 179 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Additionally, the petitioner requested a stay on the recovery of demand resulting from the aforementioned order as interim relief.

The court noted that other directors of North Delhi Bullion Pvt. Ltd. had also approached the court with similar writ petitions, which were subsequently withdrawn with liberty granted to file revision petitions under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Dr. Gupta presented an order dated 21.02.2022 from the writ petitions of other directors of the company, emphasizing the possibility of filing revision petitions under Section 264.

Mr. Vipul Agarwal, representing Mr. Sanjay Kumar, the senior standing counsel, informed the court that the respondent/revenue had no objection if an order similar to the one passed in the previous writ petitions was issued in this case. Consequently, the court disposed of the present writ petition, granting liberty to the writ petitioner/assessee to file a revision petition under Section 264 of the Act.

The judgment directed that if a revision petition is filed within three weeks of receiving a copy of the order, the concerned authority must rule on the petition without rejecting it on the grounds of limitation, as observed in the previous writ petitions. It was explicitly stated that since the court did not examine the matter on merits, the rights and contentions of the parties were left open for further consideration.

Finally, all pending applications were closed, and the parties were instructed to act based on the digitally signed copy of the order, ensuring compliance with the court's directives.

---