RAKHI NANDY vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS

PDF · subscribers
WPO/2273/2022HC CalcuttaWBCHCO003711202227 June 2022Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE MD. NIZAMUDDIN2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the dispute concerning the sale consideration of the flat (Rs. 40 Lakhs versus Rs. 80 Lakhs) constitutes a question of fact and evidence. The Court stated that it cannot, in its writ jurisdiction, examine such matters and substitute its own findings for those of the Assessing Officer, particularly when the impugned order under Section 148A(d) is not a final assessment order. The Court found that the order under Section 148A(d) was neither contrary to statutory provisions nor in violation of the principles of natural justice. While the Assessing Officer might disagree with the petitioner's objections, this disagreement does not warrant invoking writ jurisdiction. Therefore, the writ petition was dismissed. However, the petitioner was permitted to raise all points before the Assessing Officer during the reassessment proceedings, who would consider them in accordance with law.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Rakhi Nandy, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated April 30, 2022, passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and a subsequent notice under Section 148 of the Act. This action followed a notice dated March 30, 2022, under Section 148A(b), to which the petitioner responded on April 6, 2022. The reopening of assessment pertained to the sale of a flat, with the petitioner stating the sale price was Rs. 40 Lakhs, while the Assessing Officer contended it was Rs. 80 Lakhs. The Assessing Officer addressed this discrepancy in the impugned order under Section 148A(d).

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court, in its writ jurisdiction, can delve into disputed questions of fact and evidence regarding the sale consideration of a flat, and substitute its findings for those of the Assessing Officer in an order passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961? (Mixed question of law and fact, turning on Section 148A(d) and Section 147). Assessee's contention: The petitioner argued that the dispute over the sale consideration of the flat (Rs. 40 Lakhs vs. Rs. 80 Lakhs) involves factual and evidentiary matters. The petitioner also implicitly argued that the impugned order was amenable to challenge in writ jurisdiction. Revenue's contention: The revenue, through the Assessing Officer's order, contended that the sale consideration was Rs. 80 Lakhs. The High Court's reasoning implies that the revenue supported the Assessing Officer's action and the limitations of writ jurisdiction.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148A(d),Section 148,Section 148A(b),Section 147

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

OD-16 ORDER SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA ORIGINAL SIDE WPO/2273/2022 RAKHI NANDY VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE MD. NIZAMUDDIN Date : 27th June, 2022 Appearance: Mr. D. Banerjee, Adv. Mr. Abir Das, Adv. … for the petitioner. Mr. Vipul Kundalia, Adv. Mr. Prithu Dudheria, Adv. … for the respondent. The Court :- Heard learned Advocates appearing for the parties. By this writ petition, petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 30th April, 2022 under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and subsequent notice under Section 148 of the Act, on the basis of a notice dated 30th March, 2022 under Section 148A(b) of the Act by which petitioner was given an opportunity to give a response to the same. It appears from the record which is annexed to the writ petition that in response to the aforesaid notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act, has filed response on 6th April, 2022. Petitioner submits that the basis of reopening under Section 148 of the Act relates to transaction of sale of a flat which according to the petitioner was Rs.40 Lakhs but according to the Assessing Officer it was Rs.80 Lakhs. First of all these are matters of evidence and question of fact and secondly, this issue has been already discussed by the Assessing Officer in the impugned order under Section 148A(d) of the Act and this Court in this writ jurisdiction cannot go into these matters of facts and

2 evidence and substitute the finding of the Assessing Officer in its order under Section 148A(d) of the Act. An order under Section 148A(d) of the Act which is not a final assessment order and petitioner still has scope to make out his case during the proceeding under Section 147 of the Act after issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act. I find that the impugned order under Section 148A(d) of the Act is neither contrary to any statutory provision nor there is violation of Principles of Natural Justice and the Assessing Officer may not agree with the objection raised by the petitioner in its objection under Section 148A(b) of the Act and may take a different view while passing under Section 148A(d) of the Act, but that cannot be a ground to invoke the writ jurisdiction for interference of the same. For these reasons, I am not inclined to entertain this writ petition and accordingly, this writ petition being WPO/2273/2022 is dismissed. However, dismissal of this writ petition will not prevent the petitioner from taking all the points raised in this writ petition, before the assessing officer during the course of re-assessment proceeding and who will consider the same in accordance with law. (MD. NIZAMUDDIN, J.) mg

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 →