Case LawHigh Court › Debasish Basak v. Income Tax Officer, Wa...

Debasish Basak v. Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(1), Malda & Ors

High Court 17 Sep 2024 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · calcutta_appellate_side
Parties
Debasish Basak v. Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(1), Malda & Ors
Date of order
17 Sep 2024
Assessment year(s)
2020-21
Outcome
Other

The order — as passed by the High Court

Case summary

In Debasish Basak v. Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(1), Malda & Ors, the High Court (2024) decided the matter.

Decision: The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.

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

Sections referenced in this judgment

17.09.2024 Sl. No. 5. D/L. Mithun Ct.No.5 WPA 16766 of 2024 Debasish Basak Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(1), Malda & Ors. Mr. Ramesh Kumar Patodia, Ms. Megha Agarwal ..for the petitioner. Mr. Soumen Bhattacharjee, Mr. Ankan Das, Ms. Doyel Dey …for Income Tax Authority. 1. Pursuant to the order dated 21[st] August, 2024, the respondents have produced before this Court, in a sealed cover, the final verification report based on which the notice under Section 148 of the said Act dated 29[th] March, 2024 for the Assessment Year 2020-21 had been issued. 2. Mr. Patodia, learned Advocate representing the petitioner seeks for a direction upon the respondents to make over copy of the final verification report. 3. Mr. Bhattacharjee, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that in course of the assessment proceeding, the petitioner shall be entitled to copy of such report. 4. Having regard thereto and taking into consideration, the final verification report wherefrom it would appear that the verification report has not only been verified by the prescribed authority, but the value at risk shown in the final verification report is according to the report based on the estimated income escapement value arrived, during the course of verification by the prescribed authority as per e-verification Scheme, 2001 in accordance with the provision of Section 135A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 5. Having regard thereto, I am of the view that no interference is called for. interference is called for. 6. Let the records be returned to the learned Advocate representing the respondents. Advocate representing the respondents. 7. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. 8. There shall be no order as to costs. 9. All parties are to act on the basis of the server copy of this order duly downloaded from this Court’s official website. copy of this order duly downloaded from this Court’s official website. (Raja Basu Chowdhury, 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