Case LawHigh Court › Mat/198/2024 Sitaram Sharma v. Assistant...

Mat/198/2024 Sitaram Sharma v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle

High Court 20 Aug 2024 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · calcutta_appellate_side
Parties
Mat/198/2024 Sitaram Sharma v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle
Date of order
20 Aug 2024
Assessment year(s)
2018-19
Outcome
Dismissed

Case summary

In Mat/198/2024 Sitaram Sharma v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle, the High Court (2024) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.

Decision: After we have passed the above order, the learned advocate appearing for the appellant submitted that if an appeal is filed, there is a likelihood the appeal will be rejected on the ground of limiation.

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

20.08.2024 Item No.3 gd/ssd MAT/198/2024 SITARAM SHARMA VS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 40, KOLKATA AND ORS. IA NO: CAN/1/2024 Mr. Anujit Mookherji, Mr. Prithish Chandra ..for the Appellant. Mr. Om Narayan Rai ..for the Respondents. 1. This intra court appeal by the unsuccessful writ petitioner who challenged the reassessment order dated 4[th] June, 2023 passed under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 2018-19. 2. The earlier order was passed under Section 147 which was set aside by the learned Single Bench of this court and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration as an opportunity of cross-examination was not afforded to the appellant/writ petitioner. 3. Upon remand such an opportunity was granted and the authority has passed the reassessment order under Section 147 given reasons. 4. According to the learned advocate for the appellant, in the cross-examination of Jai Bhagwan Agarwal he has admitted that he does not know the assessee. 5. As pointed out by the learned standing counsel for the department, before the settlement commission the said Jai Bhagwan Agarwal has taken a different stand. 6. In any event the matter being fully factual, the learned writ court was fully justified in not entertaining the challenge to the said reassessment order by way of a writ petition and relegating the matter to avail the statutory appeal remedy available under the Act. 7. Thus, we find no grounds to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Bench. 8. Accordingly appeal fails and dismissed. 9. After we have passed the above order, the learned advocate appearing for the appellant submitted that if an appeal is filed, there is a likelihood the appeal will be rejected on the ground of limiation. 10. If the appellant files the appeal before the statutory appellate authority, the period during which the writ petition was pending till the receipt of the server copy of this order shall be excluded for the purpose of computation of limiation. (T. S. SIVAGNANAM) CHIEF JUSTICE (HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA, J.)
Facing a similar income-tax issue?
Our CA-led litigation team handles notices, scrutiny, penalties and appeals (CIT(A) & ITAT) end-to-end.
✅ Defend a reassessment (Sec 148) 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