Aleit Advisory Pvt. Ltd. & Ors v. Income Tax Officer, Ward 13(1), Kolkata & Ors

24.08.2023PBSl. No.9. WPA 19423 of 2023 Aleit Advisory Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. VsIncome Tax Officer, Ward 13(1),Kolkata & Ors. Mr. Avra Mazumder,Mr. Samrat Das,Mr. Suman Bhowmik,Ms. Alisha Das. … For the Petitioners.Mr. Smarajit Roychowdhury.……..for the respondent. Heard learned advocates appearing for theparties. By this writ petition, petitioner has challengedthe impugned order under Section 148A(d) of theIncome Tax Act, 1961, dated 27[th] April, 2023, relatingto the assessment year 2019-20 and subsequentnotice under Section 148 of the Act on three foldgrounds:- (i) that the noticee company’s name hasbeen struck off; (ii) that the impugned notice underSection 148 of the Act has been issued by thejurisdictional Assessing Officer and not by the NationalFaceless Assessment Centre (NFAC) and (iii) that asper the amended provision under Section 148 of theAct w.e.f. 1[st] April, 023, time to file return in responseto the notice under Section 148A(d) is 90 days, but in the instant case, only 30 days has been granted. So faras the objection of the petitioner, on the ground ofstriking off of the name of the noticee is concerned, itappears from record that neither these facts wereintimated to the respondent income tax authoritiesbefore the issuance of notice under Section 148A(b) ofthe Act nor in response to the notice under Section148A(b) of the Act and for the first time before thisCourt, this point is being taken by the petitioner.Though petitioner submits that such facts areavailable in the portal but by making such contentionpetitioner cannot avoid its own responsibility/obligation to inform the department. Considering the facts and circumstances of thecase, I am of the view that so far as issuance of noticeby the jurisdictional officer instead of the facelessmanner is concerned, it does not affect the substanceand materials and contents of a notice and it is ahyper-technical ground as I have already taken thisview in several earlier orders. But, so far as legality ofthe notice under Section 148 of the Act on the groundof granting only 30 days instead of 90 days under thenewly amended Act, is concerned I am of theconsidered view that this ground of the petitioner issustainable in law and accordingly, the aforesaidimpugned notice under Section 148 of the Act is quashed with liberty to the assessing authority toissue fresh notice under Section 148 of the Act inaccordance with law. All other points raised by thepetitioner with regard to the legality of the impugnedorder under Section 148A(d) of the Act is kept open tothe petitioner for taking the same in course of anysubsequent proceeding under Section 148A(d) of theAct. With this observation and direction, this writpetition being WPA 19423 of 2023 is disposed of. ( Md. Nizamuddin, J.)