HINAYANA COMMODITIES PRIVATE LIMITED vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
WPA/8890/2022HC CalcuttaWBCHCA018666202207 June 2022Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE MD. NIZAMUDDIN2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The Tribunal held that the impugned order dated March 27, 2022, passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the subsequent notice under Section 148 of the Act were liable to be set aside due to a violation of the principles of natural justice. The Tribunal observed that the impugned order did not contain any reference to or discussion of the petitioner's response dated March 26, 2022, which was available to the Assessing Officer before the order was passed. The court also noted the petitioner's submission regarding the unclear seven-day response period and the unaddressed prayer for adjournment. Consequently, the matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer to pass a fresh order under Section 148A(d), taking into consideration the petitioner's response dated March 26, 2022, and after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner or their authorized representative. The fresh order was to be passed within four weeks from the date of communication of the order.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Hinayana Commodities Private Limited, challenged an order dated March 27, 2022, passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for assessment year 2018-2019. The petitioner received a notice under Section 148A(b) on March 15, 2022, requiring a response by March 21, 2022. The petitioner submitted a response on March 26, 2022. The petitioner contended that the impugned order under Section 148A(d) was passed without considering their response dated March 26, 2022. Additionally, the petitioner argued that the seven-day period for response was unclear and their request for an adjournment was not addressed before the order was passed.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the order passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is liable to be set aside for violation of the principles of natural justice, specifically for failing to consider the assessee's response dated March 26, 2022, and for not addressing the prayer for adjournment. (Question of law and fact, turning on Section 148A(d)). Assessee's Contentions: - The impugned order under Section 148A(d) was passed without considering the petitioner's response dated March 26, 2022. - The statutory seven-day period for response to the notice under Section 148A(b) was unclear. - The petitioner's prayer for adjournment and extension of time to respond was neither considered nor rejected prior to the passing of the order. Revenue's Contentions: - The judgment records no specific contentions from the revenue.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

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

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

WPA 8890 OF 2022 07.06.2022

Sl no. 20

Hinayana Commodities Private Limited. Ct no. 2

- Vs - P.M.

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle – 7(1), Kolkata & Ors.

Mr. Sandip Choraria,

Mr. Rajarshi Chatterjee,

Mr. Sukalpa Seal

… for the petitioner

Mr. Soumen Bhattacharjee

… for the respondents

Heard learned advocates appearing for the parties. In this writ petition the petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 27th March, 2022 passed under Section 148A(d) relating to assessment year 2018-2019. Pursuant to the notice under Section 148A(d) dated 15th March, 2022, by which the petitioner was asked to give his response on or before 21st March, 2022, on the ground that the aforesaid impugned order has been passed without considering and referring or discussing with its response dated 26th March, 2022 being Annexure P/3 to the writ petition. Petitioner submits that time to give response to the aforesaid notice dated 15th March, 2022, under Section 148A(b) of the Act is not clear seven days has per statute and further, petitioner’s prayer for

2 adjournment and extension of time to give response was neither considered nor rejected before passing the aforesaid impugned order under Section 148A(d) of the Act. On perusal of the aforesaid impugned order dated 26th March, 2022 I find that there is no reference or discussion of the response of the petitioner dated 26th March, 2022 which was available to the Assessing Officer before passing the aforesaid impugned order. Considering the submission of the parties and in view of violation principle of natural justice, the aforesaid impugned order dated 27th March, 2022 and subsequent under Section 148 of the Act are set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Assessing Officer to pass afresh order under Section 148A(d) by taking into consideration the response of the petitioner dated 26th March, 2022 and after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner or it’s authorized representatives within four weeks from the date of communication of this order. With this observation and direction this writ petition being WPA 8890 of 2022 stands disposed of.

(Md. Nizamuddin, J.)

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 →