Case LawHigh Court › Apeejay Tea Limited v. Deputy Commission...

Apeejay Tea Limited v. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 4(1), Kolkata And Ors

High Court 06 Jun 2023 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · calcutta_original_side
Parties
Apeejay Tea Limited v. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 4(1), Kolkata And Ors
Date of order
06 Jun 2023
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Other

Case summary

In Apeejay Tea Limited v. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 4(1), Kolkata And Ors, the High Court (2023) decided the matter.

Decision: With these observation and direction, this writ petition beingWPO/1087/2023 is 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

OD-9 WPO/1087/2023 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTAConstitutional Writ JurisdictionORIGINAL SIDE APEEJAY TEA LIMITEDVERSUSDEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE 4(1), KOLKATA AND ORS. BEFOREThe Hon’ble Justice MD. NIZAMUDDINDate: 6 JUNE, 2023 APPEARANCEMr. Abhratosh Majumder, Sr. AdvocateMr. Avra mazumder, AdvocateMr. K. Roy, AdvocateMs. Alisha Das, AdvocateMr. Suman Bhowmick, AdvocateMr. Samrat Das, Advocate….for the petitionerMr. Om Narayan Rai, Advocate….for the respondents The Court: Supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner bekept with the record. Heard learned Advocates appearing for the parties. By this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the impugnedorder dated 17[th] July, 2022 under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act,1961 and all subsequent proceedings, inter alia, on the ground that theimpugned order under Section 148A(d) of the Act was passed in violation ofcriteria laid down under Section 151(ii) of the Act by not taking approvalfrom the “specified authority”. Mr. Rai, learned Advocate appearing for the respondents-IncomeTax Authorities could not produce relevant record to show that beforepassing the impugned order under Section 148A(d) of the Act, approval fromthe “specified authority” under Section 151(ii) of the Act was taken. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as appearfrom record and submissions of the parties, this writ petition is disposed ofby setting aside the aforesaid impugned order under Section 148A(d) of theAct and all subsequent proceedings and the matter is remanded back to theassessing officer concerned to pass fresh order under Section 148A(d) of theAct in accordance with law by proceeding from the stage where theirregularity of not taking approval from the “specified authority” has beencommitted. The whole assessment proceedings shall be concluded and thefinal order should be passed within 12 weeks from the date ofcommunication of this order in accordance with law and after observingprinciple of natural justice. With these observation and direction, this writ petition beingWPO/1087/2023 is disposed of. (MD. NIZAMUDDIN, J.)
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