JAYDEEP CHAKRABORTY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD NO 30(1) AND ORS

PDF · subscribers
WPA/21241/2022HC CalcuttaWBCHCA042096202227 September 2022Author: HON'BLE JUSTICE MD. NIZAMUDDIN2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The Tribunal held that the impugned order under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the subsequent corrigendum dated July 27, 2022, were not tenable in law. The primary reason for this decision was that the orders were passed against a deceased person, which is an admitted fact on record. The Tribunal noted that the noticee had expired on May 10, 2022, and this information was brought to the assessing officer's attention during the reassessment proceedings. The revenue's representative could not refute this position. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed of by quashing the impugned order. However, the Tribunal clarified that this quashing would not prevent the assessing officer from initiating fresh proceedings in accordance with the law if deemed necessary in the future.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Shri Jaydeep Chakraborty, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated July 26, 2022, passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and a corrigendum dated July 27, 2022, for the assessment year 2017-2018. The petitioner contended that these orders were invalid as they were passed against a deceased person. The noticee had expired on May 10, 2022, and this fact was brought to the attention of the assessing officer during the reassessment proceedings. The respondent, the Income Tax Officer, Ward 30(1) & Ors., represented by Mr. Tilak Mitra, could not dispute the fact of the noticee's death and the subsequent passing of the order against a dead person.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the impugned order under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the subsequent corrigendum dated July 27, 2022, are legally tenable when passed against a deceased person for the assessment year 2017-2018? The petitioner argued that the impugned order and corrigendum are void ab initio as they were issued against a dead person, whose death occurred prior to the passing of the order, and this fact was brought to the notice of the assessing officer. The revenue, represented by Mr. Tilak Mitra, did not contradict the factual and legal position presented by the petitioner regarding the death of the noticee and the passing of the order against a dead person.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148A(d)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

27.09.

2022. p.b. Sl. No.

22.

W.P.A. 21241 of 2022 Shri Jaydeep Chakraborty Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 30(1) & Ors. Mr. Avra Mazumder, Mr. Binayak Gupta, Mr. Suman Bhowmick. ………for the petitioner. Mr. Tilak Mitra. ………for the respondent. Heard learned advocates appearing for the parties. By this writ petition, petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 26th July, 2022 under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and subsequent corrigendum dated 27th July, 2022, relating to the assessment year 2017-2018, on the ground that the aforesaid impugned order under Section 148A(d) of the Act and subsequent corrigendum order are not tenable in the eye of law since the same have been passed against a dead person which is an admitted position as appears from record being Annexure-G to the writ petition from which it appears that the noticee has already expired on 10th May, 2022 and during the course of the impugned re- assessment proceeding, this fact was brought to the notice of the assessing officer.

2 Mr. Mitra, learned advocate appearing for the Income Tax authority is not in a position to contradict the aforesaid factual and legal position about the death of the noticee and that the impugned order has been passed against the dead person. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case as appears from record and submission of the parties, this writ petition being WPA No.21241 of 2022 is disposed of by quashing the impugned order. However, quashing of the aforesaid impugned order will not be a bar for the assessing officer to initiate any fresh proceeding in future in accordance with law. (Md. Nizamuddin, J.)

More judgments on Section 148A(d)

All 544 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148A(d) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →