Mangalam Viniyog Pvt. Ltd v. Income Tax Officer, Ward 9(1), Kolkata & Anr

26.08.2022. p.b.Sl. No.24. Mangalam Viniyog Pvt. Ltd. Vs.Income Tax Officer, Ward 9(1),Kolkata & Anr. Ms. Manju Agarwal, Mr. Bajrang Manot, Mr. Surabhi Baid. ……..for the petitioner. Mr. Aryak Dutt. ………for the UOI. Heard learned advocates appearing for the parties.By this writ petition, petitioner has challenged theimpugned order dated 5[th] July, 2022 under Section148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on the ground thatthe same has been passed in total non-application of mindand also on the ground of violation of principle of naturaljustice by not at all considering the petitioner’s objectiondated 24[th] June, 2022 against the impugned notice underSection 148A(b) of the Act dated 24[th] May, 2022. Petitionerhas further challenged the aforesaid impugned order alsoon the ground of total non-application of mind by therespondent assessing officer concerned by recording in itsorder that the petitioner has neither filed any reply norsought any adjournment during the time stipulated in thenotice under Section 148A(b) of the Act. It appears fromrecord that in fact, petitioner has filed its response/objection on 24[th] June, 2022 against the noticedated 24[th] May, 2022 under Section 148A(b) of the Act andwhich was duly received and acknowledged by the office ofthe assessing officer. Mr. Roychowdhury, learned advocate appearing forthe respondent income tax authority could not deny theallegation made by the petitioner which is substantiatedby record that the objection to the notice under Section148A(b) of the Act which in spite of receiving was notconsidered. Considering the facts and circumstances of thiscase, I am of the considered view that the impugned orderdated 5[th] July, 2022 under Section 148A(d) is notsustainable in law on the ground of violation of principle ofnatural justice and also being passed in total non-application of mind as appears to me on perusal of therecords. Since the same is non-speaking order and hasbeen passed in violation of principle of natural justice bynot considering the response to the petitioner underSection 148A(b) of the Act and further the assessing officerin spite of receiving such objection in its order hasrecorded that no such response was filed by the petitioner,the matter is remanded back to the assessing officer topass a fresh speaking order under Section 148A(d) of theAct in accordance with law and after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner or its representatives withinfour weeks from the date of communication of this order. With this observation and direction, this writpetition being WPA No.19108 of 2022 stands disposed of. (Md. Nizamuddin, J.)