Calcutta High Court: In an intra-court appeal against the impugned order challenging an order passed under Section 148-A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act), a division bench comprising of T.S. Sivagnanam,* CJ., and Supratim Bhattacharya, J., held that the assessing officer had followed the procedure under Section 148A of the Act meticulously and the appellant’s objections, seeking to challenge the initiation of proceedings, are baseless and frivolous.
Brief Facts
In the instant matter, the appellant-writ petitioner filed an intra-court appeal against the order dated 19-07-2023 in a writ petition challenging an order passed under Section 148A(d) of the Act related to a notice issued on 31-03-2023 for the assessment year 2016-2017. The primary contention was that the assessing authority had improperly sought information for multiple assessment years through a notice issued under Section 148A(b).
Parties’ Contentions
The appellant contended that the assessing authority failed to consider that information for multiple assessment years cannot be called for, especially for the assessment year 2018-2019, where an appeal is pending, and re-assessment proceedings have been challenged in court. The appellant argued that the notice issued under Section 148A(b) of the Act cannot be modified or amended, and the assessing officer did not conduct an independent investigation before initiating proceedings. Additionally, the appellant claimed that the re-assessment proceedings were time-barred.
The respondent asserted that the notice pertained only to the assessment year 2016-2017, clarifying the purpose based on high-value cash deposits during the demonetization period. The respondent highlighted that the appellant had opportunities to respond to the notice and that the assessing officer’s actions were in accordance with the law.
Court’s Observation
The Court observed that the assessing officer issued the notice under Section 148A(b) on 31-03-2023, pertaining specifically to the assessment year 2016-2017, based on high-value cash deposits during demonetization. The Court rejected the appellant’s contention that the notice was amended via subsequent communication, emphasising that the information sought pertained only to the assessment year 2016-2017.
The Court held that the assessing officer followed the procedure under Section 148A of the Act, considering the appellant’s objections and issuing a reasoned order. The Court noted the appellant’s repeated requests for adjournments, indicating an attempt to delay the proceedings. The Court noted that the appellant’s objections, seeking to challenge the initiation of proceedings, were deemed baseless and frivolous.
The Court concluded that the challenge to the order under Section 148A(d) of the Act lacked merit, and the appeal was dismissed. The Court directed the appellant to actively engage in the re-assessment proceedings without delay.
Court’s Decision
The appeal was dismissed, and no costs were awarded. The appellant was directed to cooperate in the re-assessment proceedings conducted by the assessing officer.
[Champa Impex (P) Ltd. v. Union of India, 2024 SCC OnLine Cal 367, order dated 17-01-2024]
*Judgment by Chief Justice T.S. Sivagnanam
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Mr. Pranit Bag, Mr. Anujit Mookherjee, Mr. Prithish Chandra, Counsel for the Appellant
Mr. Vipul Kundalia, Sr. Adv., Mr. Anurag Roy, Counsel for the Respondents
