Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 57130 (ALL)

TAHIR v. THE UNION OF INDIA AND 2 OTHERS

WTAX/2245/2025 · 2025-05-14

Arun Bhansali, Kshitij Shailendra

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:79836-DB Chief Justice's Court Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 2245 of 2025 Petitioner :- Tahir Respondent :- The Union of India and 2 others Counsel for Petitioner :- Avnish Kumar Srivastava, Suhail Ahmad Ansari Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,Anant Kumar Tiwari,Gaurav Mahajan, Shalini Goel Hon'ble Arun Bhansali,Chief Justice Hon'ble Kshitij Shailendra,J. 1. Ms. Shalini Goel has filed her vakalatnama on behalf of respondent nos. 2 and 3, which is taken on record. 2. This writ petition is directed against order dated 22.02.2025 passed by respondent no. 3 under Section 147 read with Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Annexure-9). 3. The petitioner was issued notice on account of the fact that during the financial year 2016-17 relevant to assessment year 2017-18, the petitioner has obtained fixed deposit of Rs. 65,00,000/- and has deposited in cash Rs. 22,30,000/-. Response was filed seeking to explain the said amount by claiming that the same was received by way of advance for selling of immovable property which fell through and the amount was refunded back. 4. The assessing authority after scrutinizing the plea sought to be raised including the nature of agreement to sell, ownership of the petitioner of the land for which purported agreement to sale was executed came to the conclusion that the plea raised was baseless and consequently passed the order impugned. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner attempted to make submissions seeking to question the validity of the order on merits. 6. The order impugned is open to appeal and apparently, no reason has been indicated for not approaching the appellate forum against the order impugned except for indicating that petitioner is required to comply with the requirement of the pre deposit. 7. Statutory requirement for pre deposit has to be fulfilled by the petitioner and the same by itself cannot be a reason for bypassing the remedy of filing appeal. 8. Consequently, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order impugned. The petition is dismissed leaving it open for the petitioner to file appeal in accordance with law. Order Date :- 15.5.2025 Sandeep/Jyotsana (Kshitij Shailendra, J) (Arun Bhansali, CJ) Digitally signed by :- SANDEEP KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad