WIZARD E-MARKETING PVT. LIMITED vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

PDF · subscribers
WPO/2578/2022HC CalcuttaWBCHCO004965202216 September 2022Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE MD. NIZAMUDDIN2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

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, was neither in violation of the principles of natural justice, nor contrary to any statutory provision, nor did it suffer from any procedural irregularity or lack of jurisdiction. The Court noted that the order was passed after observing the required formalities, including issuing notice under Section 148A(b) and providing an opportunity for objections. The Court relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Anshul Jain vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr. (dated September 2, 2022), stating that if the assessee is not satisfied with the reasoning of the order under Section 148A(d) and has grievances on merit, these can be agitated in subsequent proceedings after a notice under Section 148 is issued. The Court further clarified that an order under Section 148A(d) is neither an assessment nor a demand, and the petitioner would have ample opportunity to make a case for dropping proceedings under Section 147 in the subsequent proceedings. Therefore, the writ petition was dismissed.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Wizard E-Marketing Pvt. Limited, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated July 28, 2022, passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, pertaining to assessment year 2015-16. The petitioner argued that the order was procedurally flawed and violated principles of natural justice. The revenue, represented by the Union of India and others, appeared before the High Court. The court perused the impugned order and the submissions made by both parties.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the order passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for assessment year 2015-16, is in violation of the principles of natural justice, statutory provisions, or suffers from procedural irregularity or lack of jurisdiction. Assessee's Contentions: The petitioner argued that the order was passed in violation of natural justice, statutory provisions, and suffered from procedural irregularities and lack of jurisdiction. Revenue's Contentions: The revenue did not explicitly record its contentions on the merits of the order, but appeared before the court. The court's reasoning suggests it considered the revenue's position implicitly.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

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

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

OD 5 ORDER SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE WPO/2578/2022 WIZARD E-MARKETING PVT. LIMITED VS UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE MD. NIZAMUDDIN Date : 16th September, 2022. Appearance: Mr. Pratyush Jhunjhunwala, Adv. … for the petitioner. Ms. Smita Das De, Adv. ..for the respondent.. The Court: Affidavit-of-service filed in Court be kept with the record. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. By this writ petition, petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 28th July, 2022 under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 relating to assessment year 2015-16 being annexure P-10 to the writ petition. I have perused the aforesaid impugned order and find the same neither in violation of principle of natural justice nor contrary to any statutory provision nor there is any procedural irregularity nor without jurisdiction. I am of the view that once an order has been passed after observing formalities required under the law in issuing notice under Section 148A(b), giving opportunity of hearing to file an objection to the same and after that if the order has been passed by the assessing

2 officer under Section 148A(d) of the Act and if the assessee petitioner is not satisfied with the reasoning given in such order and has any grievance on merit of the same, he may agitate the same in course of subsequent proceedings after notice under Section 148 of the Act as per view taken by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in its order dated 2nd September, 2022 in the case of Anshul Jain vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr. in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 14823/2022. Furthermore an order under Section 148 (d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, itself is neither an assessment nor a demand and petitioner still will have ample scope and opportunity to make out a case if any for dropping of the proceeding under Section 147 of the Act in subsequent proceeding after the order passed under Section 148 (d) of the Act. In view of reasoning and discussion made above this Writ Petition being WPO No. 2578 of 2022 is dismissed. 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 →