RITWIK FINANCE ENTERPRISES PVT LTD vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS

PDF · subscribers
WPO/1958/2022HC CalcuttaWBCHCO002752202220 April 2022Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE MD. NIZAMUDDIN3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the impugned notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and all subsequent proceedings were invalid due to non-compliance with the mandatory provisions of Section 148A. The Court found that the assessing officer had admittedly not followed the procedure prescribed under Section 148A before issuing the Section 148 notice, which was issued after March 31, 2021. The Court relied on its own previous decisions in Bagaria Properties and Investment Private Limited & Anr. vs. Union of India & Ors. and Monoj Jain vs. Union of India, which dealt with similar violations. The Court quashed the notice and subsequent proceedings. However, it clarified that this quashing would not prevent the assessing officer from issuing a fresh notice in accordance with the law in the future. The Court also imposed a cost of Rs. 5000/- on the petitioner for the delay in filing the writ petition without explanation.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Ritwik Finance Enterprises Pvt Ltd, challenged 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, specifically Section 148A, which mandates a preliminary inquiry and opportunity to be heard before issuing a Section 148 notice. The petitioner also submitted a supplementary affidavit stating that a final assessment order had not yet been passed. The revenue was represented by the Union of India and others. The assessment year(s) are not explicitly stated, but the notice was issued on June 26, 2021, and the writ petition was filed in April 2022, approximately nine months later.

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 procedure laid down in Section 148A of the Act, particularly when issued after March 31, 2021. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the notice under Section 148 was issued in violation of Section 148A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. This section mandates that the assessing officer must conduct an inquiry and provide an opportunity to the assessee before issuing a notice under Section 148. The petitioner contended that this mandatory procedure was admittedly not followed by the assessing officer. They relied on the High Court's decisions in Bagaria Properties and Investment Private Limited & Anr. vs. Union of India & Ors. and Monoj Jain vs. Union of India. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the revenue.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 148A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

OD – 14 ORDER SHEET WPO/1958/2022 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION ORIGINAL SIDE RITWIK FINANCE ENTERPRISES PVT LTD VS UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE MD. NIZAMUDDIN Date : 20th April, 2022. Appearance: Mr. Hemant Tiwari, Adv. …For the Petitioner Mr. Prithu Dudhoria, Adv. …For the U.O.I. The Court : In this matter, petitioner has filed supplementary affidavit with supporting document to show that final assessment order has not been passed in this matter, which may be kept with the records. Heard learned advocates appearing for the parties. In this matter, 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 ground 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 on 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

2 and the impugned notice under Section 148 of the Act has been issued violation of Section 148A of the Act. Furthermore this case is directly covered by the orders 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 vs. Union of India reported in (2022) 134 taxman.com 173 (Calcutta). Considering these facts I hold 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 WPO No.1958/2022 is disposed of. This writ petition is being entertained subject to payment of cost of Rs. 5000/- to the High Court Legal Services Committee since the impugned notices under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, have been issued both on 26th June, 2021 as appear from records and this writ petition has been filed in April, 2022, that is, almost after nine months from receipt of the impugned notices, without any explanation for such delay in filing this writ petition. Such cost has to be paid by the petitioner to the High Court Legal Services Committee within ten days from date and such cost will be utilised for the benefit and welfare of the children staying with their parents in the

3 correctional home in West Bengal. Receipt of payment is to be produced by the petitioner before this Court. List this matter as “To be Mentioned” on 2nd May, 2022 for compliance. Urgent certified photocopy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities. (MD. NIZAMUDDIN, J.) TR/

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →