Peerless Housing Development Company Limited v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-7(1), Kolkata & Ors

14.8.2023 ks sl. 9 ks WPA 17425 of 2023 Bengal Peerless Housing Development CompanyLimited VsAssistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1),Kolkata & Ors. Mr. Abhratosh Majumder, Ld. Sr. Adv.,Mr. Avra Mazumder,Mr. Suman Bhowmik, Mr. Kausheyo Roy,Mr. Samrat Das … For the Petitioner. Mrs. Smita Das De … For the Respondents. Heard learned Advocates appearing for the parties. By this writ petition, petitioner has challenged theimpugned order dated 24[th] April, 2023, under Section148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 relating toassessment year 2019-20 on the ground that theimpugned order relating to the transaction of thepetitioner with one M/s. Solitaire Advertising(proprietor Sunil Sharma) is a non-speaking order andis perverse since the petitioner’s objection dated 20[th]April, 2023 being Annexure P-11 to the writ petitionwhere petition has given elaborate reason with allsupporting documents to establish the genuineness ofthe said transaction, which has neither beendiscussed nor the Annexure to the said applicationhas been referred in the impugned order under Section148A(d) of the Act. On perusal of the aforesaid orderwith regard to the aforesaid transaction of Rs.31,08,050/- by the petitioner with the aforesaidM/s. Solitaire Advertising(proprietor Sunil Sharma), Ifind that there is no discussion and reference of all theAnnexures which were annexed to the objection of thepetitioner dated 20[th] April, 2023. Mrs. Das De, learned Advocate appearing for therespondents opposing this writ petition submits thatthe Assessing Officer wants to have a deeperinvestigation in the matter about the financialcredibility of the aforesaid proprietor and according tome the same cannot be a ground for the AssessingOfficer to proceed with the impugned re-assessmentproceedings against the petitioner unless he discussesand deals with the aforesaid objection along with thesupporting documents filed by the petitioner andcomes to the conclusion that the aforesaid transactionis not genuine and on mere suspicion he cannotproceed with the aforesaid impugned assessmentproceedings. Considering the facts and circumstances of thecase and submission of the parties the aforesaidimpugned order is set aside to the extent of theaforesaid particular transaction and the matter isremanded back to the Assessing Officer concerned topass a fresh order confining to the aforesaidtransaction after considering the objection of the petitioner dated 20[th] April, 2023, and by passing areasoned and speaking order after giving anopportunity of hearing to the petitioner or itsauthorised representative, within a period of eightweeks from the date of communication of this order. With this observation and direction this writpetition being WPA17425 of 2023 is disposed of. ( Md. Nizamuddin, J. )