ABHISHEK GROVER vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS

PDF · subscribers
WPO/2213/2022HC CalcuttaWBCHCO003382202213 June 2022Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE MD. NIZAMUDDIN3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the impugned order dated 30th March, 2022, passed under Section 148A(d) and the subsequent notice dated 31st March, 2022, under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, were passed in violation of the statutory requirement of providing a clear seven days' time to the assessee to respond to the notice under Section 148A(b). The Court found that the period granted was insufficient. Consequently, the impugned order and notice were set aside. The matter was remanded back to the assessing officer to pass a fresh order under Section 148A(d) after considering the petitioner's response to the notice under Section 148A(b), which the petitioner was directed to file within seven days from the date of the order. The assessing officer was also directed to provide an opportunity of hearing and pass a reasoned and speaking order. The Court noted that if the petitioner failed to reply within the stipulated time, the impugned order would stand revived.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Abhishek Grover, challenged an order dated 30th March, 2022, passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for assessment year 2018-19. This order followed a notice under Section 148A(b) dated 16th March, 2022. The petitioner contended that the notice under Section 148A(b) did not provide the mandatory seven days for response, as the response was due by 21st March, 2022, only five days after issuance. The revenue, represented by the Union of India and others, could not contradict this factual and legal position.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the impugned order passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is liable to be set aside for violation of the mandatory seven-day notice period stipulated under Section 148A(b) of the Act? Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the notice issued under Section 148A(b) dated 16th March, 2022, provided a response deadline of 21st March, 2022, which is less than the seven days mandated by the provision, thus rendering the subsequent order under Section 148A(d) invalid. Revenue's Contention: The revenue, through its learned advocate, was unable to contradict the factual and legal position presented by the petitioner regarding the non-compliance with the seven-day notice period.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

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

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

OD – 6 ORDER SHEET WPO/2213/2022 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION ORIGINAL SIDE ABHISHEK GROVER VS UNION OF INDIA AND ORS BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE MD. NIZAMUDDIN Date : 13th June, 2022. Appearance: Mr. Arun Kumar Upadhyay, Adv. Mrs. Shobha Upadhyay, Adv. …For the Petitioner Mr. Smarajit Roy Chowdhury, Adv. …For the U.O.I. The Court : Heard learned advocates appearing for the parties. In this writ petition, petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 30th March, 2022, under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, relating to assessment year 2018-19 which was passed pursuant to notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act dated 16th March, 2022 and subsequent notice under Section 148 of the Act, on the ground that the aforesaid impugned order has been passed in violation of the provisions of granting seven days time to the assessee petitioner as per provision under Section 148A(b) of the Act and it appears from record being annexure P-2 to the writ petition that the date of issuance of the aforesaid notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act is 16th March, 2022 and time to give response to the same has been given only till 21st March,

2022 and as such no clear seven days has been given to the assessee petitioner to give response to the said notice dated 16th March, 2022. Mr. Roy Chowdhury, learned advocate appearing for the respondent is not in a position to contradict the aforesaid factual and legal position which appears from record that provisions regarding providing of clear seven days time to the petitioner to give response to the notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act was not complied with. Considering the submissions of the parties and facts and circumstances as appears from record, the impugned order dated 30th March, 2022 under Section 148A(d) and subsequent notice dated 31st March, 2022 under Section 148 of the Act are set aside and the matter is remanded back to the assessing officer concerned to pass a fresh order under Section 148A(d) of the Act after considering the response to the notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act to be filed by the petitioner within seven days from date, in accordance with law and by passing a reasoned and speaking order and after providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioner or his authorised representative. In case petitioner fails to give reply within the time stipulated herein, the impugned order will stand revived. With these observations and directions, this writ petition being WPO 2213 of 2022 stands disposed of. (MD. NIZAMUDDIN, J.) TR/

More judgments on Section 148A(d)

All 544 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148A(d) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →