OD – 71 v. UNION OF INDIA & Ors.
Case at a glance
- Order date
- 12 Apr 2022
- Bench
- NIZAMUDDIN
Outcome
Quashed
148 of the Act and all subsequent proceedings are quashed
Provisions considered
- Income Tax Act, 1961 s. 148
Judgment
Appearance: Ms. Swapna Das, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Das, Adv. …For the Petitioner Mr. Aryak Dutt, Adv. …For the U.O.I. The Court : Heard Learned Counsels appearing for the parties. In this matter, petitioner has challenged the impugned notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which was issued after 31st March, 2021 with supporting documents on the ground that this case clearly falls under the newly amended act relating to proceedings under Section 147 of the Act and under which there is a mandatory obligation on the part of the assessing officer to issue notice under Section 148A of the Act before issuing any notice under Section 148 of the Act and which has admittedly not been done by the assessing officer and the impugned notice under Section 148 of the Act has been issued in violation of Section 148A of the Act. Furthermore this case is directly covered by the orders of this Court in the case of Bagaria Properties and Investment Private Limited & Anr. vs.
Operative part
Union of India & Ors. reported in (2022) 134 taxman.com 196 (Calcutta) and also in the case of Monoj Jain vs. Union of India reported in (2022) 134 taxman.com 173 (Calcutta). 2 Considering these facts I hold the impugned notice under Section 148 of the Act and all subsequent proceedings are quashed. However, quashing of the impugned notice and subsequent proceedings will not debar the assessing officer concerned to issue any fresh notice in future in accordance with law. With the above observations, this Writ Petition being WPO No.1781/2022 is disposed of. This writ petition is being entertained subject to payment of cost of Rs. 5000/- to the Calcutta High Court Bar Association Lawyers’ Benevolent Fund since the impugned notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, has been issued on 31st March, 2021 as appears from record and this writ petition has been filed in March, 2022, that is, almost after eleven months from receipt of the impugned notice, without any explanation for such delay in filing this writ petition.
Such cost has to be paid by the petitioner to the Calcutta High Court Bar Association Lawyers’ Benevolent Fund within ten days from date. Receipt of payment is to be produced by the petitioner before this Court. List this matter as “To be Mentioned” on 25th April, 2022 for compliance. Urgent certified photocopy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities. (MD. NIZAMUDDIN, J.) sb/
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: 148 of the Act and all subsequent proceedings are quashed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Income Tax Act, 1961 — s. 148.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Calcutta High Court, on 12 Apr 2022. The bench was NIZAMUDDIN.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.