SIMA CHOWDHURY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD NO 50(1) KOLKATA AND ORS

PDF · subscribers
WPA/3719/2022HC CalcuttaWBCHCA007863202209 March 2022Author: HON'BLE JUSTICE MD. NIZAMUDDIN2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The Tribunal dismissed the writ petition on the grounds of inordinate delay. The court noted that the petitioner filed the writ petition almost two years after the Section 148 notice was issued and failed to provide any explanation for this delay. Furthermore, the petitioner did not avail the opportunity to file objections before the Assessing Officer, as permitted by the Supreme Court's decision in GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. vs. Income Tax Officer and Others. The court observed that the petitioner's arguments regarding the substitution of Section 148 provisions appeared to be a tactic to evade tax. The court found no merit in interfering with the notice after such a significant delay and without exhausting the statutory remedies. The petition was dismissed with costs.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Sima Chowdhury, filed a writ petition challenging a notice dated March 18, 2020, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for assessment year 2013-2014. The writ petition was filed on March 1, 2022, nearly two years after the notice was issued. The petitioner did not file any objections against the notice before the Assessing Officer, nor did they provide any explanation for the delay in filing the writ petition. The petitioner argued that the Assessing Officer lacked the power to proceed based on the notice because the new provisions of Section 148 had come into effect, even though the notice was issued prior to the new Act's enactment.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable due to the inordinate delay in filing it, approximately two years after the issuance of the Section 148 notice, without any objection being filed before the Assessing Officer or any explanation for the delay. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the Assessing Officer has no power to proceed under the impugned notice because the new provisions of Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, had come into effect, substituting the old provisions. The petitioner contended that the notice was issued before the new Act was enacted, implying the officer could not act upon it. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not explicitly record the revenue's contentions. However, the court's reasoning implies that the revenue likely argued against the maintainability of the writ petition due to the delay and the petitioner's failure to exhaust alternative remedies.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

9.3.

2022 ks WPA 3719 of 2022 sl. 22 Sima Chowdhury Vs Income Tax Officer, Ward No.50(1) Kolkata & Ors. Mr. Anil Dugar, Mr. Rajarshi Chatterjee … For the Petitioner. Mr. Manabendra Nath Bandyopadhyay … For the Respondents. Heard learned Advocates appearing for the parties. In this writ petition, petitioner has challenged the impugned notice dated 18th March, 2020, under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 relating to assessment year 2013-2014 and from record it appears that this writ petition has been filed on 1st of March, 2022, i.e. almost after two years from the date of issuance of impugned notice under Section 148 of the Act without making any objection against the same, which petitioner could have availed in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case respondent/Assessing Officer has no power at all to proceed on the basis of the aforesaid notice under 2 Section 148 of the Act which when the impugned notice was issued, new Act was not even born. It seems that the sole intention of the petitioner is to evade the tax by making flimsy grounds and without making any objection before the Officer concerned against the same under Section 148 of the Act nor approaching this Court immediately against the aforesaid impugned notice and petitioner deliberately kept quiet and now wants this Court to interfere with the aforesaid impugned notice almost after two years. Accordingly, this writ petition, being WPA 3719 of 2022 is dismissed with a cost of Rs.15,000/- to be paid by the petitioner to the Income Tax Department concerned. ( Md. Nizamuddin, J. )

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →