RUCHI DALMIA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 33(1), KOLKATA AND ORS

PDF · subscribers
WPO/2470/2022HC CalcuttaWBCHCO004652202213 September 2022Author: HON'BLE JUSTICE MD. NIZAMUDDIN2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the impugned order dated July 26, 2022, passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was neither in violation of the principles of natural justice nor contrary to any statutory provision. It also found no procedural irregularity or lack of jurisdiction in the order. The Court reasoned that once the assessing officer passes an order under Section 148A(d) after observing the required formalities, including issuing notice under Section 148A(b) and providing an opportunity for hearing, any dissatisfaction with the reasoning or merit of the order should be agitated in subsequent proceedings under Section 148 of the Act. The Court cited the Supreme Court's view in Anshul Jain vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr. The Court further noted that an order under Section 148A(d) is neither an assessment nor a demand, and the petitioner would have ample opportunity to argue for the dropping of proceedings under Section 147 in the subsequent stages. Therefore, the writ petition was dismissed.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Ruchi Dalmia, filed a writ petition before the High Court at Calcutta challenging an order dated July 26, 2022, passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. This order pertained to the assessment year 2016-17. The petitioner sought to set aside this order. The respondents were the Income Tax Officer, Ward 33(1), Kolkata, and others. The High Court heard arguments from both the petitioner and the respondents.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the impugned order dated July 26, 2022, passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for assessment year 2016-17, is in violation of the principles of natural justice, statutory provisions, or suffers from procedural irregularity or lack of jurisdiction. The petitioner contended that the order was flawed. The revenue, through its counsel, argued that the order was passed after due compliance with legal formalities, including issuing notice under Section 148A(b) and providing an opportunity for hearing. The revenue also relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Anshul Jain vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr. (dated September 2, 2022) to support its stance that grievances on merit should be raised in subsequent proceedings.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148A(d),Section 148A(b),Section 148,Section 147

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

OD –3 ORDER SHEET WPO/2470/2022 BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE MD. NIZAMUDDIN Date: 13th September, 2022. Appearance: Mr. Saurabh Bagaria, Adv. Mr. Indranil Banerjee, Adv. Mr. Subrata Mukherjee, Adv. …For the Petitioner Mr. Vipul Kundalia, Adv. Mr. Anurag Roy, Adv. …For the Respondents The Court: Heard learned counsel 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 relating to assessment year 2016-17 being annexure P-10 to the writ petition. I have perused the aforesaid impugned order and find the same neither in violation of principle of natural justice nor contrary to any statutory provision nor there is any procedural irregularity nor without jurisdiction. I am of the view that once an order has been passed after observing formalities required under the law in issuing notice under Section 148A(b), giving opportunity of hearing to file an objection to the same and after that if the order has been passed by the assessing officer under Section 148A(d) of the Act and if the assessee petitioner is not satisfied with the reasoning given in such order and has any grievance on merit of the same,

2 he may agitate the same in course of subsequent proceedings after notice under Section 148 of the Act as per view taken by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in its order dated 2nd September, 2022 in the case of Anshul Jain vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr. in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 14823/2022. Furthermore an order under Section 148 (d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, itself is neither an assessment nor a demand and petitioner still will have ample scope and opportunity to make out a case if any for dropping of the proceeding under Section 147 of the Act in subsequent proceeding after the order passed under Section 148 (d) of the Act. In view of reasoning and discussion made above this Writ Petition being WPO No. 2470 of 2022 is dismissed.

(MD. NIZAMUDDIN, J.) TR/

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 →