Amar Kumar Burnwal v. Deputy Director Of Income Tax (Investigation), Unit-6(2), Aayakar Bhawan Poorva & Ors
High Court
16 Jan 2024 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · calcutta_appellate_side
Parties
Amar Kumar Burnwal v. Deputy Director Of Income Tax (Investigation), Unit-6(2), Aayakar Bhawan Poorva & Ors
Date of order
16 Jan 2024
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Other
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Amar Kumar Burnwal v. Deputy Director Of Income Tax (Investigation), Unit-6(2), Aayakar Bhawan Poorva & Ors, the High Court (2024) decided the matter.
Decision: 3.With the above observation, the appeal and theconnected application are disposed of.connected application are disposed of.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
16.01.2024Item No.03 RP/AN Ct. No.1
MAT 958 of 2023
+
IA No.CAN 1 of 2023
Amar Kumar Burnwal Vs.
Deputy Director of Income Tax (Investigation), Unit-6(2), Aayakar Bhawan Poorva & Ors.
Mr. Rites Goel
…..for the Appellant
1.This intra-Court appeal preferred by the writpetitioner is directed against the order dated 26[th]April, 2023 passed in WPA 6902 of 2023. Theappellant had challenged an order passed by theAssessing Officer dated 4[th] January, 2023 onvarious grounds and in particular that the order isin clear violation of the principles of natural justice.The learned Single Bench without going into themerits of the matter was satisfied that there hasbeen violation of principle of natural justiceinasmuch as the appellant/writ petitioner was notafforded an opportunity of personal hearing beforethe order was passed. Therefore, the order was setaside and the matter was remanded back to theAssessing Officer, to pass a fresh order inaccordance with law by giving reasons and after
giving an opportunity of personal hearing to the writpetitioner.
2.The learned advocate appearing for the appellantwould contend that the order could not have beenpassed on account of expiry of the time limit underthe statute. As could be seen from the impugnedorder passed by the learned Single Bench that meritof the matter has not been gone into and only on theground of violation of principle of natural justice theorder has been set aside. Therefore, while affirmingthe order passed by the learned Single Bench weclarify that it will be open to the writ petitioner tocanvass all points including the point ofcommencement of de novo proceeding before theAssessing Officer.would contend that the order could not have beenpassed on account of expiry of the time limit underthe statute. As could be seen from the impugnedorder passed by the learned Single Bench that meritof the matter has not been gone into and only on theground of violation of principle of natural justice theorder has been set aside. Therefore, while affirmingthe order passed by the learned Single Bench weclarify that it will be open to the writ petitioner tocanvass all points including the point ofcommencement of de novo proceeding before theAssessing Officer.
3.With the above observation, the appeal and theconnected application are disposed of.connected application are disposed of.
(T. S. SIVAGNANAM)
CHIEF JUSTICE
(HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA, J.)
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation.
Full disclaimer & Terms.