Pascal Switchcare India Private Limited v. Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department, National Facelessassessment Center (Nafac) And Ors

ORDER SHEETWPO/242/2024IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTACONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTIONORIGINAL SIDE PASCAL SWITCHCARE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED VS ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, NATIONAL FACELESSASSESSMENT CENTER (NAFAC) AND ORS. BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE MD. NIZAMUDDIN Date: 1[st] April, 2024. Appearance:Mr. Ananda Sen, Adv.Mr. Gaurav Mathur, Adv.Mrs. Swati Agarwal, Adv.Ms. Anusha Nayek, Adv.…For the Petitioner Mr. Aryak Dutt, Adv.Mr. Prithu Dudhoria, Adv.…For Respondent no. 2 The Court: Heard learned advocates appearing for the parties. By this writ petition, petitioner has challenged the impugned orderdated 2[nd] February, 2024 passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income TaxAct, 1961 relating to assessment year 2018-19. This is the third round of litigation initiated by the petitioner. Theimpugned order arises from the very same notice under Section 148A(b) ofthe Act and it was the allegation of the petitioner on both the earlier two writpetitions being WPO 2200 of 2022 and WPO 1632 of 2023 that beforepassing the order under Section 148A(d) of the Act its representation/replydated 30[th] March, 2022 to the notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act wasnot considered. Finally respondent Income Tax Authority, as appears fromthe impugned order dated 2[nd] February, 2024, that it has considered indetail the aforesaid reply of the petitioner along with all the supporting documents filed by it. Petitioner is again aggrieved by the aforesaidimpugned order for the third time by contending that in addition to its replydated 30[th] March, 2022 some other issues have been raised by therespondent authority which petitioner could not properly response in itsreply to the notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and submissionof the parties, I find that the present impugned order contains the reasonsin detail while considering the reply of the petitioner dated 30[th] March, 2022in compliance of the earlier direction of this Court and in the impugnedorder relevant issue which has been raised is relating to the issue raised inthe notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act with regard to search andseizure in question. It is also to be considered that the impugned order isneither a final assessment order nor it is a demand and petitioner is notprejudiced at this stage and it has still the scope to make out the case if anyfor dropping the proceeding under Section 147 of the Act during theproceeding subsequent to the order under Section 148A(d) and notice underSection 148 of the Act and assessing officer cannot ignore any materials iffiled before him by the petitioner before passing the final order underSection 147 of the Act. In view of the discussion made above, I find no reason to interfere withthe impugned order under Section 148A(d) of the Act and the writ petitionbeing WPO 242 of 2024 is accordingly dismissed. TR/ (MD. NIZAMUDDIN, J.)