Mr. Soumen Bhattacharya …For The v. Ito Reported In (2003) 259 Itr 19 (Sc
High Court
18 Jan 2022 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · calcutta_appellate_side
Parties
Mr. Soumen Bhattacharya …For The v. Ito Reported In (2003) 259 Itr 19 (Sc
Date of order
18 Jan 2022
Assessment year(s)
2015-16
Outcome
Other
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Mr. Soumen Bhattacharya …For The v. Ito Reported In (2003) 259 Itr 19 (Sc, the High Court (2022) decided the matter.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
Sections referenced in this judgment
18-01-2022Item No.25
Subrata
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTAConstitutional Writ JurisdictionAppellate Side
WPA No.19908 of 2021Madhu Khaitan-vs-Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle – 29,Kolkata & Ors.
Mr. Asim Choudhury
Mr. Soham Sen …for the petitioner
Mr. Smarajit Roy Chowdhury
Mr. Soumen Bhattacharya …for the respondents
Mr K.M. Dixit, CIT (Judicial), as directed topersonally appear in court by my earlier order January 11,2022, is present in court and tenders apology by submittingthrough his counsel that the violation of the order of thiscourt was not deliberate and willful and due to somecommunication gap this has happened. I accept his apologywith caution that in future this type of mistake is notrepeated. His further appearance in court is dispensedwith.
In this writ petition, petitioner has challenged theimpugned action of the income tax authority proceedingunder section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on the basisof a notice dated March 30, 2021 under section 148 of theAct relating to assessment year 2015-16 on the groundsthat proceeding of reassessment is without disposing of theobjection of the petitioner dated September 30, 2021 beingAnnexure P11 to the writ petition in violation of the law laiddown by the Supreme Court in the case of GKN Driveshafts(India) Ltd. v. ITO reported in (2003) 259 ITR 19 (SC).
Learned advocate appearing for the income taxauthority was given several opportunities to produce therecord to show as to whether before proceeding undersection 147 of the 1961 Act objection of the petitioneragainst notice under section 148 of the 1961 Act wasconsidered and disposed of or not to which learnedadvocate for the respondents, upon instructions, submitsthat the same was not disposed of before the impugnedproceeding under section 147 of the Act and he failed toproduce any record in this regard.
Considering the submission of the parties and thefacts as appear from record, this writ petition is disposed ofby directing the respondent concerned to consider anddispose of the petitioner’s objection to the notice undersection 148 of the Act dated September 30, 2021 (AnnexureP11) before proceeding any further in the matter.
With the above observation and direction, WPANo.19908 of 2021 is disposed of.
[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.