Accord Capital Markets Private Limited v. Income Tax Officer, Ward

17.1.2023 ks sl. 6 ks sl. 6 ks WPA 29015 of 2022 Accord Capital Markets Private Limited Vs Income Tax Officer, Ward No.10(2), Kolkata & Ors. Mr. Avra Mazumder,Mr. Soumitra Chowdhury,Mr. Suman Bhowmik, Mr. Samrat Das … For the Petitioner.Mr. Pithu Dudharia … For the Respondents. Heard learned Advocates appearing for the parties. By this writ petition, petitioner has challenged theimpugned order dated 29[th] July, 2022, under Section148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 relating toassessment year 2015-16 mainly on the two groundsthat the impugned order has been passed withoutapproval from the specified Authority under Section151(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 before passing theaforesaid impugned order under Section 148A(d) of theAct and secondly, on the ground that itsobjections/replies against the notice under Section148A(b) of the Act has not been properly consideredand dealt with and the order has been passed in amechanical manner. So far as the first ground ofapproval is concerned, I find from the documentsannexed to the writ petition itself that approval wastaken in this case from Principal Chief CIT on 27[th]July, 2021, before passing the impugned order on 29[th] July, 2021. So the first ground taken by the petitionerfails. Now, so far as the second ground of non-consideration of the petitioner’s objection is concerned,on perusal of the aforesaid impugned order I find thatthe Assessing Officer has considered the same and onthe material available before him has come to theconclusion that the Assessee/petitioner failed toexplain the transaction regarding derivative loss andthere is serious allegation against the petitioner thatAssessee/petitioner has made claim of fictitious lossand that the same is not genuine. These facts are tobe adjudicated by the Assessing Officer in course ofassessment proceedings after issuance of notice underSection 148 of the Act subsequent to the order passedunder Section 148A(d) of the Act. This court inexercise of Constitutional writ jurisdiction underArticle 226 should not interfere in these types of caseswhere full-fledged investigations are required onalleged fictitious transaction/claim and all these arematters of evidence which cannot be appreciated bythe writ court. This is not a case which falls under thecategory where impugned order has been passedwithout jurisdiction or there is violation of anyprinciple of natural justice or there is any proceduralirregularity or the impugned order has been passed inclear violation of any statutory provision of the statute. In view of the discussion made above, I am notinclined to entertain this writ petition being WPA29015 of 2022 and the same is dismissed. However, finding any observation made in thisorder will not have any impact on the final assessmentorder to be passed by the Assessing Officer. ( Md. Nizamuddin, J. )