Nitin Agarwal v. Income Tax Officer Ward 46(1) Kolkata And Ors

ORDER SHEETWPO/1096/2023IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTACONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTIONORIGINAL SIDE NITIN AGARWAL VS INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 46(1) KOLKATA AND ORS. BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE MD. NIZAMUDDIN Date: 8[th] June, 2023. Appearance:Ms. Rita Mukherjee, Adv.Ms. Sutapa Roy Choudhury, Adv.Mr. Abhijat Das, Adv.Ms. Aratrika Roy, Adv.Mr. Anirban Chatterjee, Adv.…For the PetitionerMr. Prithu Dudhoria, Adv.…For the Respondents The Court: Heard learned advocates appearing for the parties. By this writ petition, petitioner has challenged the impugned orderdated 13[th] April, 2023 under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961relating to assessment year 2019-20. I have perused the aforesaid impugned order from which it appearsthat there is an allegation of bogus purchase made by the petitioneramounting to Rs. 2,08,87,819/- during the financial year 2019-20. It alsoappears from the aforesaid impugned order that the opportunity of beingheard was provided to the petitioner along with the copy of information andmaterial relied upon and the assessee petitioner was asked to explain as towhy the aforesaid transaction should not be treated as income chargeable totax which is an escaped assessment. It also appears from the aforesaidimpugned order that notice along with annexure was duly served upon theassessee petitioner through speed post to the registered address of the petitioner and the petitioner was asked to furnish reply to the samebefore 10[th] April, 2023 and pursuant to the same assessee has filed replyalso and the assessing officer has considered the said reply. It may be thatthe assessing officer has come to a different conclusion but that does notmean that the assessing officer has not given the petitioner any opportunityof hearing or the assessing officer will have to agree with the contention ofthe petitioner. Findings against the petitioner based on material evidencecannot be re-appreciated and scrutinised by the Writ Court in exercise of itsjurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by acting as anassessing officer or an appellate authority. Furthermore petitioner has stillample scope after passing of the order under Section 148A(d) of the Act tomake out any case if he has in his favour subsequent to the notice underSection 148 of the Act before passing of the final assessment order underSection 147 of the Act. Furthermore I am of the considered opinion that order under Section148A(d) of the Act is neither final assessment order nor any demand arisesout of the same and even if the order is passed under Section 147 of the Actthat itself is also appealable under the statute. In view of the facts andcircumstances of the case and nature of allegation I do not find any illegalityin the impugned order and accordingly this writ petition being WPO1096 of2023 is dismissed. TR/ (MD. NIZAMUDDIN, J.)