ARUN KUMAR KHETAWAT vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
WPA/8893/2022HC CalcuttaWBCHCA018672202213 June 2022Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE MD. NIZAMUDDIN3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The Tribunal set aside the impugned order dated March 24, 2022, passed under Section 148A(d) of the Act, and the subsequent notice under Section 148 of the Act dated March 29, 2022. The matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer. The petitioner was granted liberty to file their response to the notice under Section 148A(b) by June 17, 2022. If the response is filed within this stipulated time, it is to be considered by the respondents, and a fresh order under Section 148A(d) is to be passed in accordance with law, observing the principles of natural justice. The reasoning was based on the admitted facts of insufficient notice period and non-consideration of the adjournment request, leading to a violation of natural justice. If the petitioner defaults in filing the response by June 17, 2022, the original impugned order and notice under Section 148 will stand revived. No other issues were expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Arun Kumar Khetawat, challenged an order dated March 24, 2022, passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for assessment year 2018-2019. The challenge was based on the grounds of violation of natural justice and Section 148A(b) of the Act. Specifically, the petitioner argued that less than seven days' notice was provided to respond to the notice issued under Section 148A(b) on March 17, 2022, with the response deadline being March 23, 2022. Furthermore, an adjournment petition filed on March 23, 2022, was allegedly neither considered nor rejected before the impugned order was passed. The respondents' counsel could not contradict these facts.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the impugned order dated March 24, 2022, passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is liable to be set aside on the ground of violation of the principle of natural justice and Section 148A(b) of the Act, by providing less than seven days for response and not considering the adjournment petition? (Mixed question of law and fact, concerning Section 148A(b) and Section 148A(d)). Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the time provided to respond to the notice under Section 148A(b) was less than the mandatory seven days, and an adjournment petition filed on March 23, 2022, was ignored, thus violating principles of natural justice. Revenue's Contention: The respondents' counsel could not contradict the facts presented by the petitioner.

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

13.6.2022 ks WPA 8893 of 2022 sl. 11 Arun Kumar Khetawat Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-43, Kolkata & Ors. Mr. Rajarshi Chatterjee, Mr. Rajkumar Banerjee … For the Petitioner. Mr. Sumon Bhattacharji … For the Respondents. Heard learned Advocates appearing for the parties. In this writ petition, petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 24th March, 2022 under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 relating to assessment year 2018-2019 on the ground of violation of principle of natural justice and in violation of the provision of Section 148A(b) of the Act by providing less than seven days time to give response to the impugned notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act and by not considering the adjournment petition dated 23rd March, 2022. It appears from record annexed to the writ petition that time to file response to the notice under Section 148A(b) which was issued on 17th March, 2022, and time to file response was given till 23rd March, 2022 which is not a clear seven days as per provision of Section 148A(b) of the Act and further it appears from page 18 of the writ petition that a prayer for adjournment was made on 23rd March, 2022 for giving response to the aforesaid notice but the

2 same was neither considered nor rejected and the impugned order has been passed. Mr. Bhattacharji, learned Advocate appearing for the respondents opposing the writ petition could not contradict the aforesaid facts as appears from record. Considering the submission of the parties, the impugned order dated 24th March, 2022 under Section 148A(d) of the Act and subsequent notice under Section 148 of the Act dated 29th March, 2022 are set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Assessing Officer concerned to pass a fresh order under Section 148A(d) of the Act and the petitioner is given liberty to file response to the notice in question under Section 148A(b) of the Act by 17th June, 2022 and if such response is filed by the petitioner, the same shall be considered by the respondents and fresh order will be passed in accordance with law and by observing the principle of natural justice. In case of default by the petitioner in giving such response within the time stipulated herein, the impugned order under Section 148A(d) and notice under Section 148 of the Act will stand revived. With these directions and observations, this writ petition being WPA 8893 of 2022 is 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 →