Rakesh Agarwal v. Income Tax Officer, Ward-45(1), Kolkata & Ors

OD-4 ORDER SHEET WPO/138/2014 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ JurisdictionORIGINAL SIDE RAKESH AGARWAL VS INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-45(1), KOLKATA & ORS. BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE MD. NIZAMUDDIN Date: 13th August, 2021. Appearance: The Court:-The petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 20[th]December, 2011 rejecting the petitioner’s application under Section 154 of theIncome Tax Act, 1961 for rectification of the alleged mistake in the order dated22[nd] December, 2011 passed under Section 264 of the Act on the ground that theCommissioner while disposing of the application of the petitioner under Section264 of the Act has committed a mistake apparent from records by not taking intoconsideration or dealing with the issues raised by the petitioner in his order under Section 264 of the Act which has been pointed out in his application underSection 154 of the Act but when I perused the said application of the petitionerunder Section 264 of the Act I found that those issues are absent and have noreference at all in the application of the petitioner under Section 264 of the Actand the petitioner has attempted to make out a new case in his application undersection 154 of the Act. Considering the facts as appeared from the records and submission of Mr.Sen, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and that he could not improvehis application under Section 264 of the Act, which is the basis of his application,I am of the considered view that the Commissioner was perfectly justified inpassing the impugned order under Section 154 of the Act rejecting the claim ofthe petitioner for rectification of the order passed under section 264 of the Act onthe issues which were not at all the subject matter of the original applicationunder Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Accordingly, I am of the considered view that the writ petitioner could notmake out a case for invoking constitutional writ jurisdiction of this Court and thiswrit petition being WPO/138/2014 is dismissed with no cost. (MD. NIZAMUDDIN , J.)