Karishma Tie Up Private Limited v. Income Tax Officer Ward 8/1 Kolkata And Ors
High Court
11 Jul 2023 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · calcutta_original_side
Parties
Karishma Tie Up Private Limited v. Income Tax Officer Ward 8/1 Kolkata And Ors
Date of order
11 Jul 2023
Assessment year(s)
2019-20
Outcome
Other
Case summary
In Karishma Tie Up Private Limited v. Income Tax Officer Ward 8/1 Kolkata And Ors, the High Court (2023) decided the matter.
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 –8
ORDER SHEET
WPO/1241/2023IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTACONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTIONORIGINAL SIDE
KARISHMA TIE UP PRIVATE LIMITED
VS
INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 8/1 KOLKATA AND ORS.
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE MD. NIZAMUDDIN
Date: 11[th] July, 2023.
Appearance:Ms. Swapna Das, Adv.Mr. Siddharth Das, Adv.…For the PetitionerMrs. Smita Das De, Adv.…For the Respondents
The Court: Heard learned advocates appearing for the parties.
By this writ petition, petitioner has challenged the impugned orderdated 12[th] April, 2023 under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961relating to assessment year 2019-20 on the ground of violation of principlesof natural justice and that the impugned order is non-speaking order sinceobjection/response of the petitioner dated 16[th] March, 2023 against noticeunder Section 148A(b) of the Act was not taken into consideration and byrecording that no objection/response has been filed which is contrary torecord.
Mrs. Das De, learned advocate appearing for the respondent IncomeTax Authority is not in a position to deny the aforesaid allegation of thepetitioner substantiated by record.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this writ petitionbeing WPO 1241 of 2023 is disposed of by setting aside the aforesaid
impugned order dated 12[th] April, 2023 and all the subsequent proceedingsand the matter is remanded back to the assessing officer concerned to passfresh order after considering the reply/response of the petitioner dated 16[th]March, 2023 and after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner or itsauthorised representative, within a period of eight weeks from the date ofcommunication of this order.
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.