RAJENDRA KUMAR AGRAWAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 36(1) KOLKATA AND ORS

PDF · subscribers
WPO/1805/2021HC CalcuttaWBCHCO004263202127 January 2022Author: HON'BLE JUSTICE MD. NIZAMUDDIN3 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the case did not fall into the categories where the impugned notice was bad on the face of it or where the issuing authority lacked inherent jurisdiction. The Court distinguished between a wrongful or irregular exercise of jurisdiction and a lack of inherent jurisdiction. While acknowledging that the petitioner might have a strong case on merits concerning the assessment proceedings, the Court found that it was not a fit case for invoking the constitutional writ jurisdiction. Consequently, the Court was not inclined to entertain the writ petition or interfere with the notice under Section 148 or the proceedings under Section 147. The Court explicitly stated that it was dismissing the writ petition without going into the merits of the impugned proceedings and kept all points raised by the petitioner on merit open for them to be raised before the assessing officer, who was directed to consider the case on its merits without being influenced by any observations made in the order.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Rajendra Kumar Agrawal, challenged a notice dated March 31, 2021, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2014-15. The petitioner also challenged an order dated December 15, 2021, which rejected their objection against the issuance of the Section 148 notice and the invocation of Section 147 of the Act. The primary contention was that the order rejecting the objection did not adequately address the petitioner's arguments. The matter came before the High Court at Calcutta in its constitutional writ jurisdiction.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the impugned notice dated March 31, 2021, under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for assessment year 2014-15 is bad on the face of it or issued without inherent jurisdiction. 2. Whether the order dated December 15, 2021, rejecting the petitioner's objection against the Section 148 notice and invocation of Section 147 of the Act, dealt in detail with the contentions raised by the petitioner. Assessee's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the order rejecting their objection was deficient as it did not address their contentions in detail. They sought to challenge the validity of the Section 148 notice and the subsequent proceedings under Section 147. Revenue's Arguments: The revenue, represented by the Income Tax Officer Ward 36(1) Kolkata and others, contended that the case did not fall into categories where the notice was bad on its face or issued without jurisdiction. The judgment does not explicitly record further arguments from the revenue.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 147

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

OD 99 BEFORE: The Hon’ble JUSTICE MD. NIZAMUDDIN Date : 27th January, 2022 (Via Video Conference) Mr. J.P. Khaitan, Sr. Adv. Ms. Manju Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Bajrang Manot, Adv. … for the Petitioner Mr. Tilok Mitra, Adv.

…for the respondents The Court: Heard learned advocates appearing for the parties. In this matter, petitioner has challenged the impugned notice dated 31st March, 2021 under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act for the assessment year 2014-15 and further challenging the impugned order of rejection dated 15th December, 2021 rejecting the petitioner’s objection against the issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act and invoking of Section 147 of the Act on the ground that the impugned order of rejection does not deal in detail the contention raised by the petitioner in the aforesaid objection.

2 Considering the submissions of the parties and on perusal of records, I am of the view that this case does not fall in those categories where the impugned notice is bad on the face of it or the Authority who has issued the impugned notice having inherent lack of jurisdiction which is different from wrongful or irregular exercise of jurisdiction. In this case petitioner is not satisfied with the reasoning given by the respondent assessing officer concerned in his impugned order of rejection. Petitioner may have a good case on merit for the purpose of assessment proceeding but it is not a fit case for invoking constitutional writ jurisdiction of this Court and I am not inclined to entertain this writ petition and interfere with the impugned notice and the proceeding under Section 147 of the Act. Since I am dismissing this writ petition without going into merit of the impugned proceeding under Section 148 and proceeding under Section 147 of the Act, all the points raised by the petitioner on meirt of the impugned proceeding are kept open and petitioner is entitled to take all such points in course of the impugned proceeding before the assessing officer concerned who will consider the case of the petitioner on merit without being influenced by any observation made in this order. This writ petition being WPO 1805 of 2021 is dismissed. (MD. NIZAMUDDIN, J.) TR/

3

More judgments on Section 148

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →