Btl Epc Limited v. Assistant Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 1(1), Kolkata & Ors
High Court
07 Jun 2022 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · calcutta_appellate_side
Parties
Btl Epc Limited v. Assistant Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 1(1), Kolkata & Ors
Date of order
07 Jun 2022
Assessment year(s)
2018-2019
Outcome
Other
Case summary
In Btl Epc Limited v. Assistant Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 1(1), Kolkata & Ors, the High Court (2022) decided the matter.
Decision: With this observation and direction, this writ petition 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
07.06.2022 Sl no. 19 Ct no. 2 P.M.
WPA 8813 OF 2022
BTL EPC Limited. - Vs - Assistant Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1), Kolkata & Ors.
Mr. Avra Mazumder, Ms. Megha Agarwal, Mr. Binayak Gupta, Sk. Md. Bilwal Hossain
… for the petitioner
Mr. Soumen Bhattacharjee
… for the respondents
Heard learned advocates appearing for the parties. In this writ petition the petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 22[nd] April, 2022, under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, relating to assessment year 2018-2019 on the ground that the same has been passed by a non-speaking order without considering and dealing with the reply filed by the petitioner on 4[th] April, 2022 and 8[th] April, 2022 as appears at page 108 and 123 of the writ petition.
On perusal of the aforesaid impugned order I find that the same is non-speaking order and the aforesaid reply of the petitioner has not at all been considered and discussed and the same has been rejected by just one line order that the same was not satisfactory.
Considering the submissions of the parties this petition being WPA 8813 of 2022 is disposed of by directing the respondent Assessing Officer concerned to pass a fresh order in accordance with law and by passing a reasoned and speaking order particularly dealing with the contention raised by the petitioner in the aforesaid replies, within eight weeks from the date of communication of this order after providing opportunity of hearing of the petitioner or it’s authorized representatives.
With this observation and direction, this writ petition stands disposed of.
(Md. Nizamuddin, 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.