IVORY FINVEST LIMITED vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS

PDF · subscribers
WPO/2449/2022HC CalcuttaWBCHCO004604202214 September 2022Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE MD. NIZAMUDDIN2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the impugned order passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated July 4, 2022, was arbitrary, unreasonable, and passed in total non-application of mind. The Court found significant inconsistency in the reasons provided by the assessing officer at different stages of the proceeding. Initially, the reason was receipt of Rs. 25,00,000/- from Romanchak Merchandise Pvt. Ltd. This was followed by a second notice citing an accommodation entry of Rs. 1,56,00,279/- from Kamalraj Housing Private Limited. Finally, the order under Section 148A(d) cited the same amount as an accommodation entry from a different set of five companies. This vacillation in the basis for reassessment proceedings indicated a lack of due diligence and application of mind by the assessing officer. Consequently, the Court quashed the impugned order under Section 148A(d) and the subsequent notice under Section 148 of the Act. However, the Court clarified that this would not bar the assessing officer from initiating fresh proceedings in accordance with the law.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Ivory Finvest Limited, challenged an order dated July 4, 2022, passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for assessment year 2018-19. The petitioner argued the order was arbitrary and passed without application of mind. The assessing officer initially issued a notice under Section 148A(b) on March 17, 2022, stating the petitioner received Rs. 25,00,000/- from Romanchak Merchandise Pvt. Ltd. Subsequently, a second notice dated May 23, 2022, under Section 148A(b) was issued, citing accommodation entry of Rs. 1,56,00,279/- from Kamalraj Housing Private Limited. The final order under Section 148A(d) provided a different reason, stating Rs. 1,56,00,279/- was received as accommodation entry from M/s. Gurumukh Mercantile Pvt. Ltd., M/s. Lifewood Advisory Pvt. Ltd., M/s. Mangalvani Overseas Pvt. Ltd., M/s. Neelgagan Suppliers Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Vidyalaxmi Fabrics Pvt. Ltd.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the order passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is arbitrary, illegal, and passed in total non-application of mind, turning on the inconsistency of reasons provided by the assessing officer. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the assessing officer exhibited inconsistency in the reasons provided for issuing notices under Section 148A(b) and the final order under Section 148A(d). The initial notice cited receipt of Rs. 25,00,000/- from one entity, the second notice cited Rs. 1,56,00,279/- from a different entity, and the final order cited the same amount from a list of multiple entities. This change in reasoning demonstrates a lack of application of mind and makes the impugned order arbitrary and unsustainable. Revenue's Contention: The judgment records no specific contentions from the respondents (Union of India and Ors.).

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 – 3 ORDER SHEET WPO/2449/2022 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION ORIGINAL SIDE IVORY FINVEST LIMITED VS UNION OF INDIA AND ORS BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE MD. NIZAMUDDIN Date: 14th September, 2022.

Appearance: Mr. Pranit Bag, Adv. Mr. Brijesh Kumar Singh, Adv. …For the Petitioner Mr. Smarajit Roy Chowdhury, Adv. …For the Respondents The Court: Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. By this writ petition, petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 4th July, 2022 under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 relating to assessment year 2018-19 on the ground that the same has been passed arbitrarily, illegally and in total non-application of mind. Generally this Court is very reluctant to interfere with the order under Section 148A(d) of the Act but in view of exceptional and unusual facts and circumstances as appears from record in this case, I am inclined to interfere with the aforesaid impugned order for the reason that initial notice under Section 148A(b) was issued on 17th March, 2022 annexing the reason given by the assessing officer for issuance of notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act which is that the petitioner has received an amount of Rs. 25,00,000/- from Romanchak Merchandise Pvt. Ltd. during financial year 2017-18. Thereafter strangely a second notice dated 23rd May, 2022 was issued under Section 148A(b) of the Act by calling it as a subsequent proceeding and in that notice the assessing officer changed its reasoning from the earlier notice and

2 here by saying that the petitioner has received accommodation entry of a sum of Rs. 1,56,00,279/- from Jama Kharch Company namely, Kamalraj Housing Private Limited and thereafter in the final order under Section 148A(d) of the Act has given another reason different from earlier two reasoning and here he has recorded that a sum of Rs. 1,56,00,279/- was received by the petitioner as an accommodation entry from companies M/s. Gurumukh Mercantile Pvt. Ltd., M/s. Lifewood Advisory Pvt. Ltd., M/s. Mangalvani Overseas Pvt. Ltd., M/s. Neelgagan Suppliers Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Vidyalaxmi Fabrics Pvt. Ltd. Finding such inconsistency of the stand/reasoning by the assessing officer from time to time and taking total different view in the final order under Section 148A(d) of the Act from the view and reasoning taken in the initial notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act dated 17th March, 2022, I am of the view that the impugned order is arbitrary, unreasonable and in total non-application of mind and not sustainable in law and accordingly the impugned order under Section 148A(d) of the Act dated 4th July, 2022 and subsequent notice under Section 148 of the Act are quashed. However, quashing of this impugned proceeding will not be a bar for the assessing officer to initiate any fresh proceeding in future in accordance with law. Accordingly, this writ petition being WPO 2449 of 2022 is 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 →