Arindam Chatterjee v. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 29(1), Kolkata And Ors
High Court
16 Jan 2024 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · calcutta_appellate_side
Parties
Arindam Chatterjee v. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 29(1), Kolkata And Ors
Date of order
16 Jan 2024
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In Arindam Chatterjee v. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 29(1), Kolkata And Ors, the High Court (2024) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.
Decision: Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
The order — as passed by the High Court
16.01.2024 Item No.21 gd/ssd
MAT/2270/2023 IA NO: CAN/1/2023
ARINDAM CHATTERJEE VS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 29(1), KOLKATA AND ORS.
Mr. Govind Jethkia, Mr. Rajarshi Chatterjee
..for the Appellant.
Ms. Smita Das De,
Ms. Sangita Das
..for the Respondents.
1. This intra court appeal is directed against
the order passed by the learned Single Bench dated 16[th] November, 2023 in WPA 23465 of 2023 by which the writ petition filed by the appellant challenging the validity of Section 221 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, the Act) was rejected.
2. After elaborately hearing of the learned advocate for the appellant, we find that none of the grounds made out by the appellant can be construed to challenge the Vires of a statute. The appellant has not been able to demonstrate as to how the provision is arbitrary or unreasonable or ungraded or irrational. Mere use of these words and expressions cannot make a statute invalid.
3. Hence, the challenge to the said provision has to necessarily fail.
4. Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed.
(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.