SUDHA DEVI PRAHLADKA ALIAS SUDHA PRAHALADKA vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

PDF · subscribers
WPA/19544/2022HC CalcuttaWBCHCA038687202202 September 2022Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE MD. NIZAMUDDIN2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the impugned order dated July 28, 2022, passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was neither in violation of the principles of natural justice, nor without jurisdiction, nor contrary to any provision of law. The Court also found that no constitutional validity of any provision of law was involved. The Court reiterated that it could not act as an appellate authority under Article 226 of the Constitution to substitute its findings for those of the authorities below. It further observed that the order under Section 148A(d) does not automatically become an assessment order or a demand, and the petitioner would still have ample scope and opportunity to present her case before the Assessing Officer for dropping the proceedings during the Section 148 proceedings. Accordingly, the writ petition was disposed of by granting liberty to the petitioner to raise all points before the Assessing Officer.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Sudha Devi Prahaladka, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated July 28, 2022, passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for assessment year 2015-2016. This order was followed by a notice under Section 148 of the Act dated July 30, 2022. The petitioner contended that the impugned order was passed without jurisdiction, in violation of natural justice, and contrary to law. The Revenue was represented by the Union of India. The High Court observed that the petitioner was dissatisfied with the reasoning for not accepting her response to the notice under Section 148A(b). The Court noted that it could not act as an appellate authority and substitute its findings for those of the authorities below. It also pointed out that the order under Section 148A(d) does not automatically constitute an assessment order or a demand, and the petitioner still has opportunities to present her case before the Assessing Officer.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the impugned order dated July 28, 2022, passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is without jurisdiction, in violation of the principles of natural justice, or contrary to any provision of law, concerning assessment year 2015-2016. Assessee's Contentions: The petitioner argued that the impugned order was passed without jurisdiction, in violation of the principal of natural justice, and contrary to any provision of law. The petitioner also contended that the Court, exercising its Constitutional writ jurisdiction under Article 226, should not act as an appellate authority and substitute its findings for those of the authorities below. Revenue's Contentions: The judgment does not record specific contentions made by the Revenue.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

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

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

WPA 19544 OF 2022 02.09.2022

Sl no. 22 Sudha Devi Prahaladka alias Sudha Prahaladka Ct no. 2

- Vs - P.M.

Union of India & Ors.

Mr. Sutirtha Das

… for the petitioner

Mr. Aryak Dutt

…. For Union of India

Heard learned Counsel appearing for the parties.

By this writ petition, petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 28th July, 2022, under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 relating to assessment year 2015-2016 and subsequent notice under Section 148 of the Act dated 30th July, 2022. On perusal of the aforesaid impugned order dated 28th July, 2022, I am of the considered view that the aforesaid impugned order is neither in violation of principal of natural justice nor the same is without jurisdiction, nor the same is contrary to any provision of law, nor any constitutional validity of any provision of law is involved in this case.

It appears to me that petitioner is not satisfied with the reasoning given for not accepting the petitioner’s response to the notice under Section

2 148A(b) of the Act and this Court exercise of Constitutional writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot act as an appellate authority over such order and substitute its finding with the findings of authorities below.

I am also of the considered view that by mere passing of the impugned order under Section 148A(d) of the Act, it does not automatically become an assessment order or a demand and the petitioner will still have ample scope and opportunity to make out a case before the Assessing Officer for dropping the proceedings in course of 148 proceedings.

Accordingly, this writ petition being WPA 19544 of 2022 is disposed of without passing any order or granting any relief in this writ petition, except granting liberty to the petitioner to take all points raised in this writ petition before the Assessing Officer concerned in course of Section 148 proceeding. With this observation and direction this writ petition stands disposed of.

(Md. Nizamuddin, J.)

More judgments on Section 148A

All 3,543 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →