SATADAL BANERJEE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -44(2) KOLKATA AND ORS

PDF · subscribers
WPO/2118/2022HC CalcuttaWBCHCO003094202211 May 2022Author: HON'BLE JUSTICE MD. NIZAMUDDIN2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court, considering the submissions and in the interest of justice, set aside the impugned order dated March 29, 2022, passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the subsequent notice dated March 29, 2022, under Section 148 of the Act. The Court directed the respondent Assessing Officer to pass a fresh order under Section 148A(d) within fifteen days from the date of the order, in accordance with the law and by observing the principles of natural justice. The Assessing Officer was also directed to provide prior notice of hearing to the petitioner before passing the fresh order, and the petitioner would be entitled to produce relevant documents. The primary reasoning was the violation of natural justice due to the non-consideration of the adjournment application and the inaccurate recording of the petitioner's response.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Satadal Banerjee, challenged an order dated March 29, 2022, passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and a subsequent notice dated March 29, 2022, under Section 148 of the Act. The challenge was based on the alleged violation of natural justice, specifically the non-consideration of the petitioner's adjournment application dated March 24, 2022, which was received by the Assessing Officer's office on March 25, 2022. The impugned order stated that the petitioner did not file any response to a notice dated March 18, 2022, which the petitioner contended was not entirely accurate, as an adjournment request was made. The petitioner also filed further responses on March 29, 2022, and April 22, 2022.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the impugned order dated March 29, 2022, passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the subsequent notice dated March 29, 2022, under Section 148 of the Act, are liable to be set aside on the ground of violation of the principle of natural justice, specifically for not considering the petitioner's adjournment application dated March 24, 2022. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the impugned order was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice as their application for adjournment dated March 24, 2022, which was duly received, was not considered. They also contended that the Assessing Officer's observation that no response was filed to the notice dated March 18, 2022, was not entirely correct, as an adjournment request was made. The petitioner also filed subsequent responses. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record specific arguments from the revenue.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148A,Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

OD – 15

ORDER SHEET WPO/2118/2022 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION ORIGINAL SIDE

SATADAL BANERJEE VS INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -44(2) KOLKATA AND ORS

BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE MD. NIZAMUDDIN Date : 11TH MAY, 2022. Appearance: Mr. J.P. Khaitan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sanjay Bhumik, Adv. Mr. Indranil Banerjee, Adv. ..for the petitioner

Mr. Soumen Bhattacharjee, Adv. ..for the respondents

The Court : Heard learned Advocates appearing for the parties. In this matter, petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 29th March, 2022 under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and subsequent notice dated 29th March, 2022 under Section 148 of the Act on the ground of violation of principle of natural justice by not considering the petitioner’s application for adjournment dated 24th March, 2022 which was received by the Office of the Assessing Officer on 25th March, 2022 and further it appears from record that Assessing Officer concerned in the impugned order under Section 148A(d) of the Act has recorded that in response to the notice dated 18th March, 2022 petitioner did not file any response which is not fully correct as appears from record. Though

2

petitioner may not have given the reply or objection to the aforesaid notice under Section 148A(d) of the Act but petitioner has prayed for adjournment and there is no reference of such application for adjournment in the impugned order dated 29th March, 2022. It appears from record that petitioner has also filed a response by letter dated 29th March, 2022 which was received by the Office of the respondents on 30th March, 2022 and another response by letter dated 22nd April, 2022. Considering the submission of the parties and in the interest of justice, petitioner is afforded an opportunity of hearing by setting aside the impugned order dated 29th March, 2022 under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and subsequent notice under Section 148 of the Act by directing the respondent Assessing Officer concerned to pass a fresh order under Section 148A(d) of the Act within fifteen days from date in accordance with law and by observing the principle of natural justice. Before passing the order under Section 148A(d) of the Act the respondent Assessing Officer concerned shall give prior notice of hearing to the petitioner. The petitioner will be entitled to produce relevant documents in support of his case.

(MD. NIZAMUDDIN, J.)

Sbghosh

More judgments on Section 148A

All 3,543 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →