EXCEL COMMODITY AND DERIVATIVE PVT LTD vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS

PDF · subscribers
WPO/2298/2022HC CalcuttaWBCHCO003846202230 June 2022Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE MD. NIZAMUDDIN2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the impugned order dated April 7, 2022, passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the subsequent notice under Section 148 of the Act were set aside. The Court found that the Assessing Officer had not provided any reasoning or discussion on the contentions raised by the petitioner in their objection dated March 28, 2022. Consequently, the matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer to pass a fresh order in accordance with the law. This fresh order must be reasoned and speaking, specifically taking into consideration the petitioner's objections. The petitioner or their authorized representative must be given an opportunity of hearing before the fresh order is passed. The Assessing Officer was directed to pass the fresh order within eight weeks from the communication of this order.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Excel Commodity and Derivative Pvt Ltd, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated April 7, 2022, passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for assessment year 2018-2019. This order was based on a notice dated March 22, 2022, issued under Section 148A(b) of the Act. The petitioner contended that the impugned order was illegal, non-speaking, and perverse because the Assessing Officer failed to address or discuss the elaborate objections filed by the petitioner on March 28, 2022, in response to the Section 148A(b) notice. The revenue's counsel was unable to justify the impugned order.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the order passed by the Assessing Officer under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is bad in law, non-speaking, and perverse, by failing to consider the objections raised by the assessee? Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the order under Section 148A(d) was illegal and perverse because it did not deal with the objections filed by the petitioner on March 28, 2022, in response to the notice under Section 148A(b). The petitioner relied on the fact that their objections, appearing at page 28 of the writ petition (Annexure P-3), were not discussed or addressed in the impugned order. Revenue's Contention: The learned Advocate for the respondent (revenue) could not justify the impugned order.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148A,Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

OD –14 ORDER SHEET WPO/2298/2022 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION ORIGINAL SIDE

EXCEL COMMODITY AND DERIVATIVE PVT LTD VS UNION OF INDIA AND ORS

BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE MD. NIZAMUDDIN Date : 30TH JUNE, 2022.

Appearance: Mr. Pranit Bag, Adv. Mr. Brijesh Kumar Singh, Adv. ..for the petitioner

Mr. Tilak Mitra, Adv. ..for the respondents

The Court: Affidavit of service filed by the petitioner be kept with the record. Heard learned Advocates appearing for the parties. By this writ petition, petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 7th April, 2022 under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act relating to assessment year 2018-2019 on the basis of notice dated 22nd March, 2022 under Section 148A(b) of the Act. It is the case of the petitioner that the impugned order is bad in law and is a non-speaking order as well as perverse in view of the fact that in response to the aforesaid notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act dated 22nd March, 2022, petitioner has made an objection with elaborate reasoning as appears at page 28 being Annexure P-3 to the writ petition while there is no

discussion and no dealing with the same by the Assessing Officer in its aforesaid order dated 7th April, 2022. On perusal of the aforesaid order under Section 148A(d) of the Act, I do not find any reasoning or any discussion on the contention raised by the petitioner in its aforesaid objection dated 28th March, 2022. Mr. Tilak Mitra, learned Advocate appearing for the respondent could not justify the aforesaid impugned order by his submission. Considering the submission of the parties, the aforesaid impugned order dated 7th April, 2022 under Section 148A(d) and subsequent notice under Section 148 of the Act are set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Assessing Officer concerned for passing a fresh order in accordance with law and by passing a reasoned and speaking order particularly by taking into consideration the objection of the petitioner dated 28th March, 2022, within eight weeks from the date of the communication of this order. Needless to mention, before passing any fresh order under Section 148A(d) of the Act, petitioner or its authorised representative shall be given opportunity of hearing. With these observations and directions, this writ petition being WPO No. 2298 of 2022 stands disposed of.

(MD. NIZAMUDDIN, J.)

Sbghosh

More judgments on Section 148A

All 3,543 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →