MIRA COMMOSALES LLP vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

PDF · subscribers
WPA/6874/2022HC CalcuttaWBCHCA014407202221 April 2022Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE MD. NIZAMUDDIN3 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The Tribunal held that the impugned notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and all subsequent proceedings were quashed. The reasoning was based on the petitioner's contention that the Assessing Officer had failed to comply with the mandatory procedural requirement of issuing a notice under Section 148A before issuing the Section 148 notice, as per the amended provisions. The Tribunal found the case to be covered by its previous orders in similar matters. The quashing of the notice and proceedings does not preclude the Assessing Officer from issuing a fresh notice in accordance with the law. The writ petition was allowed subject to the petitioner paying costs of Rs. 5,000/- to the High Court Legal Services Committee and Rs. 5,000/- to the Calcutta High Court Bar Association Lawyers’ Benevolent Fund within seven days, due to the delay in filing the writ petition without explanation.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Mira Commosales LLP, filed a writ petition challenging a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The notice was issued after March 31, 2021. The petitioner argued that the notice was issued in violation of the newly amended provisions, which mandate a mandatory inquiry under Section 148A of the Act before issuing a Section 148 notice. The petitioner contended that the Assessing Officer had failed to conduct this mandatory inquiry. The writ petition was filed in April 2022, approximately ten months after the receipt of the impugned notice, without any explanation for the delay.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is invalid for non-compliance with the mandatory procedural requirement of issuing a notice under Section 148A of the Act, as amended. Assessee's Contentions: The petitioner argued that the impugned notice under Section 148 was issued in violation of the amended Act, which mandates a prior inquiry under Section 148A. They relied on the cases of Bagaria Properties and Investment Private Limited & Anr. vs. Union of India & Ors. and Monoj Jain v. Union of India & Ors. Revenue's Contentions: The judgment records no specific arguments from the respondents (Union of India & Ors.).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 148A,Section 147

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

21.4.2022 ks WPA 6874 of 2022 sl. 61 Mira Commosales LLP Vs Union of India & Ors. Mr. Brijesh Kumar Singh … For the Petitioner. Mr. Prithu Dudharia … For the Respondents. Heard learned Advocates appearing for the parties. In this writ petition, petitioner has challenged the impugned notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which was issued after 31st March, 2021 with supporting documents on the grounds that this case clearly falls under the newly amended Act relating to proceedings under Section 147 of the Act and under which there is a mandatory obligation the part of the Assessing Officer to issue notice under Section 148A of the Act before issuing any notice under Section 148 of the Act and which has admittedly not done by the Assessing Officer and that the impugned notice under Section 148 of the Act has been issued in violation of Section 148 of the Act. Furthermore, this case is directly covered by the order of this Court in the case of Bagaria Properties and Investment Private Limited & Anr. vs. Union of India & Ors. reported in (2022) 134 taxman.com 196(Calcutta) and also in the case of Monoj Jain v.

2 Union of India & Ors. reported in (2022) 134 taxman.com 173 (Calcutta). Considering the facts, the impugned notice under Section 148 of the Act and all subsequent proceedings are quashed. However, quashing of the impugned notice and subsequent proceedings will not debar the Assessing Officer concerned to issue any fresh notice in future in accordance with law. With the above observations, this writ petition being WPA 6874 of 2022 stands disposed of. This writ petition is allowed 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 June 24, 2021 as appears from record and this writ petition has been filed in April, 2022, that is, almost after ten months from receipt of the impugned notice, without any explanation for such delay in filing this writ petition. Such costs to be paid by the petitioner to the Calcutta High Court Bar Association Lawyers’ Benevolent Fund within seven days from date. Receipt of payment is to be produced before this court. List this writ petition under the heading “To Be Mentioned” on May 2, 2022 for compliance. ( 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 →