Case LawHigh Court › Anand Potato Cold Storage Private Limite...

Anand Potato Cold Storage Private Limited v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle 1/1 And Ors

High Court 27 Apr 2023 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · calcutta_original_side
Parties
Anand Potato Cold Storage Private Limited v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle 1/1 And Ors
Date of order
27 Apr 2023
Assessment year(s)
2017-18
Outcome
Other

Case summary

In Anand Potato Cold Storage Private Limited v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle 1/1 And Ors, the High Court (2023) decided the matter.

Decision: In view of the discussion made above, this writ petition being WPO 650of 2023 stands disposed of.

Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.

Sections referenced in this judgment

The order — as passed by the High Court

ORDER SHEETWPO/650/2023IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTACONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTIONORIGINAL SIDE ANAND POTATO COLD STORAGE PRIVATE LIMITEDVS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 1/1 AND ORS. BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE MD. NIZAMUDDIN Date: 27[th] April, 2023. Appearance:Mr. Rites Goel, Adv.…For the PetitionerMr. Aryak Dutt, Adv.…For the Respondents The Court : Heard learned advocates appearing for the parties. By this writ petition, petitioner has challenged the impugned orderdated 30[th] July, 2022 under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961relating to assessment year 2017-18 by raising the pure question of lawrelating to the jurisdiction of the assessing officer concerned in passing theaforesaid impugned order by non-compliance of the formalities of takingapproval of the specified authority mentioned in Section 151(ii) of theIncome Tax Act, 1961. Admitted position in this case is that impugned order under Section148A(d) of the Act has been passed after a lapse of three years from the endof the relevant assessment year and in this case specified authority is notthe Principal Commissioner of Income Tax from whom approval has beentaken before passing the aforesaid impugned order and it appears on a plainreading of Section 151(ii) of the said Act that Principal CIT from whom approval has been taken is not the specified authority for the purpose ofapproval under Section 148 and Section 148A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, submission of theparties and the aforesaid factual and legal position, the aforesaid impugnedorder under Section 148A(d) of the Act dated 30[th] July, 2022 and allsubsequent proceedings are quashed. However, quashing of the impugned notice and subsequent proceedingswill not be a bar on the part of the Income Tax Authorities concerned toinitiate any fresh proceeding in future in accordance with law after takingapproval from the specified authority. In view of the discussion made above, this writ petition being WPO 650of 2023 stands disposed of. (MD. NIZAMUDDIN, J.) TR/
Facing a similar income-tax issue?
Our CA-led litigation team handles notices, scrutiny, penalties and appeals (CIT(A) & ITAT) end-to-end.
✅ Defend a reassessment (Sec 148) notice → 💬 Ask our CA
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.
Contact Careers Media / Press · Privacy Terms Refund Cancellation Cookies Disclaimer
© 2026 EaseValue Advisors LLP · LLPIN ACN-4920 · Jaipur, Rajasthan