M/S KASTURI TOWERS PRIVATE LTD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
WPA/4090/2022HC CalcuttaWBCHCA008592202215 March 2022Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE SUVRA GHOSH3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The Tribunal held that the impugned order dated February 3, 2022, rejecting the petitioner's objections was not a speaking order, as it failed to address the petitioner's specific grievances regarding the non-issuance of the notice on March 31, 2021, and its non-uploading or display on the IT portal on April 1, 2021. The respondent's counsel was unable to deny the petitioner's allegations that their representations were not adequately replied to before the impugned order was passed. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order. The respondent authority was directed to consider and dispose of the petitioner's representation dated January 20, 2022, in accordance with law, by passing a reasoned and speaking order after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner within eight weeks. All further proceedings would be contingent on the outcome of this reconsideration.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, M/s. Kasturi Towers Private Ltd., challenged a notice dated March 31, 2021, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for assessment year 2013-2014. The petitioner also challenged an order dated February 3, 2022, which rejected their objections. The objections were based on the notice being barred by limitation, not having been received by the petitioner's registered email or uploaded to the IT portal on April 1, 2021, and the respondent's failure to provide evidence of issuance prior to April 1, 2021, and audit logs, despite repeated requests. The respondent's counsel could not deny these allegations.

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 2013-2014 is barred by limitation? (Question of law) 2. Whether the impugned notice was validly issued and served on the petitioner, considering the petitioner's claim of non-receipt via email or upload on the IT portal on April 1, 2021? (Question of mixed law and fact) 3. Whether the impugned order dated February 3, 2022, rejecting the petitioner's objections is a speaking order, having addressed the petitioner's grievances regarding the issuance and service of the notice and the lack of evidence provided by the respondent? (Question of law) Assessee's Contentions: The notice is barred by limitation. The notice was not issued on March 31, 2021, as it was not received by email or uploaded to the IT portal on April 1, 2021. The respondent failed to provide evidence of issuance and audit logs despite requests. The impugned order rejecting objections is silent on these grievances. Revenue's Contentions: Not recorded in the judgment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

15.3.2022 ks WPA 4090 of 2022 sl. 12 M/s. Kasturi Towers Private Ltd. Vs Income Tax Officer, Ward –13(1)& Ors. Mr. Avra Mazumder, Ms. Megha Agarwal, Mr. B. Gupta … For the Petitioner. Mr. Bhaskar Prosad Banerjee … For the Customs, C Ex. & S.Tax Ms. Smita Das De … For the Respondents. Heard learned Advocates appearing for the parties. In this writ petition, petitioner has challenged the impugned notice dated 31st March, 2021 under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 relating to assessment year 2013-2014 and the impugned order dated 3rd February, 2022 rejecting the petitioner’s objection to the aforesaid notice on the ground that the impugned notice is barred by limitation, secondly, that the impugned notice was never issued on 31st March, 2021 since the same was not received by the petitioner by its registered e-mail address nor was uploaded or displayed on the I.T. portal on 1st April, 2021 and further on the ground that in spite of repeated requests by its letters dated 8th July, 2021, 6th December, 2021 and 20th January, 2022 asking the respondents authority to provide it the evidence of issue of the aforesaid notice prior to 1st April, 2021 and Audit log of IT portal as to when the said notice

2 was posted on portal, was never replied and the impugned order of rejection of the petitioner's objection is also silent on all these grievances raised in the aforesaid representations. Ms. Das De, learned Advocate appearing for the respondents is also not able to deny the aforesaid allegation of the petitioner that the aforesaid representations were replied to and disposed of before passing the impugned order of rejection of the petitioner’s objection and I also find that the impugned order of rejection dated 3rd February, 2022 is not a speaking order so far as the grievances of the petitioner raised in the aforesaid representations about the allegation of non-issuance of the impugned notice on 31st March, 2021 and not uploading and displaying on the IT portal on 1st April, 2021. Considering the submission of the parties, this writ petition, being WPA 4090 of 2022 is disposed of by setting aside the impugned order dated 3rd February, 2022 rejecting the petitioner’s objection to the impugned notice under Section 148 of the Act and the respondent concerned is directed to consider and dispose of the representation of the petitioner dated 20th January, 2022 being Annexure P-9 to the writ petition in accordance with law and by passing a reasoned and speaking order after giving an

3 opportunity of hearing to the petitioner or its authorised representative within eight weeks from the date of communication of this order and all further proceedings will depend upon the final out come of the order to be passed by the respondents on the aforesaid representation. ( 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 →