MANISH SHARMA vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

PDF · subscribers
WPA/6233/2022HC CalcuttaWBCHCA013102202219 April 2022Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE MD. NIZAMUDDIN2 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The Tribunal held that the impugned notice dated June 30, 2021, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is not sustainable in law. The reasoning was based on the admitted fact that the Assessing Officer had failed to issue a notice under Section 148A of the Act prior to issuing the Section 148 notice, which is a mandatory obligation under the newly amended provisions of Section 147. The Tribunal relied on its own decision in the case of Bagaria Properties reported in (2022) 134 Taxman.Com 196 (Calcutta). The notice was quashed. However, the quashing of the notice does not preclude the respondent/Assessing Officer from issuing a fresh notice in accordance with the law. The writ petition was entertained subject to the payment of costs of Rs. 5,000/- to the High Court Legal Services Committee due to the delay in filing the petition without explanation.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Manish Sharma, challenged a notice dated June 30, 2021, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, pertaining to assessment year 2013-2014. The notice was issued under the newly amended provisions of Section 147. The petitioner contended that the Assessing Officer had a mandatory obligation to issue a notice under Section 148A of the Act before issuing the Section 148 notice. This procedural step was admittedly not taken by the Assessing Officer. The writ petition was filed on April 6, 2022, approximately nine months after the receipt of the impugned notice, without any explanation for the delay.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated June 30, 2021, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for assessment year 2013-2014, is sustainable in law, given that a notice under Section 148A was not issued prior to it? Assessee's Contentions: The petitioner argued that the impugned notice under Section 148 was not sustainable in law because the Assessing Officer failed to comply with the mandatory procedural requirement of issuing a notice under Section 148A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, before issuing the Section 148 notice. The petitioner relied on the decision of this Court in the case of Bagaria Properties reported in (2022) 134 Taxman.Com 196 (Calcutta). Revenue's Contentions: The judgment records no specific arguments for the revenue.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 147,Section 148A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

19.04.2022. p.b. Sl. No.27. W.P.A. 6233 of 2022 Manish Sharma Vs. Union of India & Ors. Mr. Anuj Kumar Mishra. ……..for the petitioner. Mr. Smarajit Roychowdhury. ……..for the UOI. Heard learned advocates appearing for the parties. In this writ petition, petitioner has challenged the impugned notice dated 30th June, 2021 under section 148 of the Income Tax Act relating to the assessment year 2013-2014 which was issued on 30th June, 2021 as appears from impugned notice itself and obviously it falls within the ambit of newly amended provisions of Section 147 proceedings of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and under which there was a mandatory obligation on the part of the Assessing Officer to issue notice under Section 148A of the Income Tax Act before issuing the impugned notice under Section 148 of the Act which has been admittedly not done in this case. In view of this admitted facts as appears from record and in view of the decision of this Court in the case of Bagaria Properties reported in (2022) 134 Taxman.Com 196 (Calcutta), the impugned notice under Section 148 of

2 the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 30th June, 2021 is not sustainable in law and the same is quashed. However, quashing of the impugned notice will not prevent the respondent/Assessing Officer to issue any fresh notice in accordance with law. This writ petition is being entertained subject to payment of costs of Rs.5,000/- to the High Court Legal Services Committee, since the impugned notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 has been issued on 30th June, 2021 as appears from record and this writ petition has been filed on 6th April, 2022, that is, almost after nine months from receipt of the impugned notice, without any explanation for such delay in filing this writ petition. Such costs has to be paid by the petitioner to the High Court Legal Services Committee within seven days from date, which is to be utilised for the welfare of street children. Payment of receipt is to be produced before this court. List this matter under the heading “To Be Mentioned” on April 28, 2022 for compliance. Urgent certified photocipy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities. (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 →