Case LawHigh Court › Dinesh Kumar Goyal, Huf v. Income Tax Of...

Dinesh Kumar Goyal, Huf v. Income Tax Officer, (Investigation)-2, Kolkata, And Anr

High Court 16 Mar 2021 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · calcutta_original_side
Parties
Dinesh Kumar Goyal, Huf v. Income Tax Officer, (Investigation)-2, Kolkata, And Anr
Date of order
16 Mar 2021
Assessment year(s)
2016-17
Outcome
Other

The order — as passed by the High Court

Case summary

In Dinesh Kumar Goyal, Huf v. Income Tax Officer, (Investigation)-2, Kolkata, And Anr, the High Court (2021) decided the matter.

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

Sections referenced in this judgment

OD-1 WPO / 102 / 2021IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTAConstitutional Writ JurisdictionORIGINAL SIDE(VIA VIDEO CONFERENCE) DINESH KUMAR GOYAL, HUF Versus INCOME TAX OFFICER, (INVESTIGATION)-2, KOLKATA, AND ANR. BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE SHEKHAR B.SARAF Date : 16[th] March, 2021 Appearance: Mr.R.N.Dutt, Adv.Ms.Sutapa Roychoudhury, Adv. Mr.P.K.Bhowmick, Adv.Mr.radhamohan Ray, Adv. The Court : This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution ofIndia wherein the writ petitioner is aggrieved by a notice under sub-Section 6 ofSection 133 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 with reference to Assessment Years2015-16 and 2016-17. The case of the petitioner is that when no inquiry or proceedings under thisAct are pending against the petitioner, proviso 2 of sub-Section 6 of Section 133comes into play. Under the said proviso a prior approval is required from the Principal Director or Director as the case may be or the Principal Commissioneror Commissioner. The case of the petitioner is that such approval was never taken. Mr. Bhowmick, counsel appearing on behalf of the Income Tax Departmenthas relied on a approval issued for making enquiry as per first proviso of Section133 (6) for the Financial Year 2015-16 (A.Y. 2016-17). I have heard counsel appearing for the parties and perused the materialson record. I am of the view that as no proceedings are pending against the petitionercompany, approval should have been taken under the second proviso under sub-Section 6 of Section 133 of the Income Tax, 1961 for both the Assessment Years. Since the same has not been done, the impugned notice dated February20, 2021 is quashed and set aside. The Department shall be at liberty to proceed in future in accordance with law. Since no affidavits have been filed in this matter, the allegations made inthe writ petition are deemed not to have been admitted by the respondents. The writ petition being WPO No. 102 of 2021 stands disposed of. (SHEKHAR B.SARAF, J.)
Facing a similar income-tax issue?
Our CA-led litigation team handles notices, scrutiny, penalties and appeals (CIT(A) & ITAT) end-to-end.
✅ Get help with an income-tax 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