Mat/161/2022 Of Dr Keya Mitra v. Income Tax Officer And Ors

25.06.2024Item No. 25Ct. No. 01AN/RP M.A.T 161 of 2022withIA No. CAN 1 of 2022 r Dr. (Smt) Keya MitraVs. Income Tax Officer, Ward No.50(1), Kolkata & Ors. Mr. Shameek RayMs. Bharati Ghosh …. For the Appellant 1. This intra-Court appeal filed by the writpetitioner is directed against the order dated11.01.2022 in WPA 21372 of 2021. In the said writpetition, the appellant had challenged the AssessmentOrder passed under Section 147 read with Section144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 26.08.2021. The learned Single Judge declined to entertain thewrit petition with an observation that it is open to theappellant to avail the remedy available under the Act.Questioning the correctness of the said order, thepresent appeal was filed. The appeal was admitted on08.03.2022 and the following interim order waspassed which is re-produced hereinunder: “We have heard learned counselfor the appellant. The issue to be considered in thisappeal is whether the ex parte assessment order dated 26[th] August,2021 passed in the name of a deadperson is valid in law. The appellant/writ petitioner isthe daughter of Smt. Aloka Ray, whopassed away on 9[th] September, 2015.On receipt of notice dated 30[th] January,2021 under Section 142 (1) of the IncomeTax Act, 1961 the appellant hadsubmitted a representation to theAssistant Commissioner of Income Tax,National Faceless Assessment Centreduly reporting about the demise of hermother and also stating that she does nothave any idea regarding the transactionor the documents pertaining to thetransaction and she is not in a position toproduce any document pertaining to theIncome Tax allegedly to be payable byher mother. The said representation wasuploaded and acknowledgement hasbeen generated showing the grievancedated 4.2.2021. In the column‘Grievance Description’ the appellant hasclearly mentioned about the demise ofher mother and she does not have idea ofthe transaction done by her mother.Further, the appellant also requested tobe intimated as to how she can assist theIncome Tax Department to resolve theissue as stated in the notice underSection 142(1) dated 30.01.2021. The procedure adopted by theFaceless Assessment Centre, whichculminated in the order dated26.08.2021 under Section 147 read withSection 144 of Income Tax Act passed bythe Assessing Officer that the AssessingOfficer nowhere mentions about thegrievance which was uploaded by theappellant in the department’s website.Therefore, we are prima facie satisfiedthat such order could not have beenpassed ignoring the grievance expressedby the appellant which would be a goodground to entertain a writ petition. The appeal is admitted. Issuefresh notice to the respondents. Till the appeal is heard anddecided the assessment order dated26.08.2021 which was impugned in thewrit petition and all other consequentialproceedings shall remain stayed. The matter is returnable six weekshence.” The appeal is admitted. Issuefresh notice to the respondents. Till the appeal is heard anddecided the assessment order dated26.08.2021 which was impugned in thewrit petition and all other consequentialproceedings shall remain stayed. The matter is returnable six weekshence.” 2. There is nothing on record placed by theDepartment to show that what has been recorded inthe above order is factually incorrect, in regard to therepresentation given by the appellant stating that hermother is no more and acknowledgment has beengenerated showing the grievance dated 04.02.2021.In the grievance, the appellant has clearly statedabout the demise of her mother and that she does nothave any idea about the transaction made by her.The appellant had been fair enough to state that shemay be intimated as to how she can assist IncomeTax Department to resolve the issue as stated in thenotice issued under Section 142(1) dated 30.01.2021.However, none of the submissions made by theappellant had been taken note of in the re-assessment order that has been passed by theNational Faceless Assessment Centre. We find thatthe re-assessment has been made withoutconsidering the relevant particulars and, inparticular, the submission made by the appellant inresponse to the notices issued by the Assessing Officer much earlier at the time the matter was notbefore the National Faceless Assessment Centre. 3. Thus, for the above reasons, we hold thatthe re-assessment order to be unsustainable in law.Hence, the appeal and the writ petition standallowed. The order passed in the writ petition is setaside. The order impugned in the writ petition viz.the re-assessment order is quashed. 4. Consequently, the connected application also stands allowed and disposed of. (T. S. Sivagnanam) (Chief Justice) (Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.)