M/S. S. HATI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3), HOOGHLY & ANR.

PDF · subscribers
ITA/138/2018HC CalcuttaWBCHCO000223201822 May 2024Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE SURYA PRAKASH KESARWANI,HON'BLE JUSTICE RAJARSHI BHARADWAJ2 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court noted that the assessee, on instruction, submitted that the matter has been settled under the Vivad-se-Vishwas Act, 2020, and consequently, the appeal has become infructuous. A certificate under Section 5(1) of the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020, was produced and kept on record. In view of this settlement, the Court disposed of the appeal. The substantial question of law regarding the forfeiture of the right to challenge the fresh assessment order was not decided on merits due to the settlement. The operative direction was to dispose of the appeal.

What were the facts?

The assessee, M/s. S. Hati, filed an appeal before the High Court at Calcutta against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The appeal was admitted on a substantial question of law concerning the assessee's right to challenge a fresh assessment order when the order under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which directed the fresh assessment, was not challenged. The procedural history involves the ITAT dismissing the assessee's appeal. The amount in dispute is not specified. The appeal was admitted on July 20, 2018.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal was right in dismissing the appeal of the assessee on the ground that the assessee, not having challenged the order passed under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, had forfeited its right to challenge the fresh assessment order passed on the basis of the direction of the revisional authority? Assessee's contention: The assessee, through its counsel, submitted that the matter has been settled under the Vivad-se-Vishwas Act, 2020, rendering the appeal infructuous. A certificate under the said Act was produced. Revenue's contention: No specific contention is recorded for the revenue in the judgment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 263

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

O-62

ITA/138/2018

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA SPECIAL JURISDICTION (INCOME TAX) ORIGINAL SIDE

M/s. S. HATI -VERSUS- INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3), HOOGHLY & ANR.

BEFORE : THE HON’BLE JUSTICE SURYA PRAKASH KESARWANI

AND THE HON’BLE JUSTICE RAJARSHI BHARADWAJ Date : 22nd May, 2024.

Appearance: Mr. Ananda Sen, Adv. … for the appellant. Ms. Smita Das De, Adv. Mr. Prithu Dudheria, Adv. ...for the respondent.

1.

Heard Sri Ananda Sen, learned counsel for the appellant/assessee and Ms. Smita Das De, learned senior standing counsel assisted by Mr. Prithu Dudheria, learned junior standing counsel for the respondent/revenue. 2. This appeal was admitted by this Court by order dated 20.07.2018 on the following substantial question of law : “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal was right in dismissing the appeal of the assessee on the ground that the assessee, not having challenged the order passed under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 had forfeited its right to challenge the fresh assessment order passed on the basis of direction of the revisional authority ?”

2 3. Learned counsel for the appellant, on instruction, submits that the matter has been settled by the appellant/assessee under Vivad-se-Vishwas Act, 2020 and, as such, the appeal has become infructuous. He also produces a copy of the Form-3 i.e., the certificate under sub-Section (1) of Section 5 of the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020 read with Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Rules, 2020, which is kept on record. 4. In view of the aforesaid, the appeal (ITA/138/2018) is disposed of.

(SURYA PRAKASH KESARWANI, J.)

(RAJARSHI BHARADWAJ, J.)

As.

More judgments on Section 263

All 13,616 judgments and leading authorities on Section 263 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →