Jay Baba Bakreswar Rice Mill Private Limited v. Income Tax Officer Ward 9/1 And Ors
High Court
13 Jun 2023 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · calcutta_original_side
Parties
Jay Baba Bakreswar Rice Mill Private Limited v. Income Tax Officer Ward 9/1 And Ors
Date of order
13 Jun 2023
Assessment year(s)
2014-15
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In Jay Baba Bakreswar Rice Mill Private Limited v. Income Tax Officer Ward 9/1 And Ors, the High Court (2023) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.
Decision: I am not inclined to entertain this writ petition being WPO 1106 of 2023 and accordingly thesame is dismissed.
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 –5
ORDER SHEET
WPO/1106/2023IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTACONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTIONORIGINAL SIDE
JAY BABA BAKRESWAR RICE MILL PRIVATE LIMITEDVSINCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 9/1 AND ORS.
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE MD. NIZAMUDDIN
Date: 13[th] June, 2023.
Appearance:
Ms. Swapna Das, Adv.Mr. Siddharth Das, Adv.…For the PetitionerMr. Tilok Mitra, Adv.…For the Respondents
The Court: Heard learned advocates appearing for the parties.
By this writ petition, petitioner has challenged the impugned orderdated 27[th] July, 2022 under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961relating to assessment year 2014-15.
I have perused the aforesaid impugned order and finding no ground tointerfere with the same since the same is neither without jurisdiction northere is any procedural irregularity nor there is any violation of principle ofnatural justice nor the impugned order is contrary to any specific provisionof law. Furthermore I am of the considered view that the aforesaid impugnedorder under Section 148A(d) of the Act is neither a final assessment ordernor it is a demand and petitioner still has ample scope and opportunity topress its case in its favour if it has any during the impugned proceedingsubsequent to the notice under Section 148 of the Act. I am not inclined to
entertain this writ petition being WPO 1106 of 2023 and accordingly thesame is dismissed.
Written instruction filed by Mr. Mitra, learned advocate appearing forthe respondents be kept with the record.
TR/
(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.