Case LawHigh Court › Ranjeet Kumar Kanodia (Huf v. Income Tax...

Ranjeet Kumar Kanodia (Huf v. Income Tax Officer, Ward

High Court 16 Jun 2023 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · calcutta_appellate_side
Parties
Ranjeet Kumar Kanodia (Huf v. Income Tax Officer, Ward
Date of order
16 Jun 2023
Assessment year(s)
2016-2017
Outcome
Other

Case summary

In Ranjeet Kumar Kanodia (Huf v. Income Tax Officer, Ward, the High Court (2023) decided the matter.

Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.

Sections referenced in this judgment

The order — as passed by the High Court

16.06.2023. p.b.Sl. No.6. WPA 10283 of 2023 Ranjeet Kumar Kanodia (HUF) Vs.Income Tax Officer, Ward No.44(2),Kolkata & Ors. Mr. Avra Mazumder,Mr. Suman Bhowmik,Mr. Samrat Das. ……..for the petitioner. Mr. Tilak Mitra. ……..for the respondent. Heard both the parties. By this writ petition, petitioner has challenged theimpugned order under Section 148A(d) of the Income TaxAct, 1961, dated 30[th] March, 2023, relating to assessmentyear 2016-2017, mainly on the ground that the basis ofthe impugned adverse assessment order by the AssessingOfficer is that petitioner has not filed any return in therelevant assessment year. Learned advocate appearing on behalf of thepetitioner produces the original acknowledgment receiptrelating to the said assessment year 2016-2017 whichestablishes that the original return was filed on 23[rd] July,2016 in the office of the Joint Commissioner of IncomeTax, Range-45, Kolkata. Mr. Mitra, learned advocate opposing this writpetition submits that even if the said return has been filed,it has been filed not before the appropriate authority andJoint Commissioner is not the Assessing Officer of thepetitioner and the Assessing Officer of the petitioner is ITO44(2), Kolkata, as appears from record. Without going into the merit of the assessment orderunder Section 148A(d) of the Act and subsequentproceeding, on the ground of non-consideration of Returnof the petitioner in spite of filing the same before thedepartment may be not before the correct officer, but thesame cannot be ignored our disregarded, the aforesaidimpugned order dated 30[th] March, 2023 and subsequentproceeding is set aside and the matter is remanded back tothe Assessing Officer concerned to pass a fresh order inaccordance with law and by observing principle of naturaljustice and after taking into consideration the aforesaidReturn in the hardcopy along with relevant documentwithin a period of 12 weeks from the date ofcommunication of this order. This writ petition being WPA 10283 of 2023 isdisposed of. (Md. Nizamuddin, J.)
Facing a similar income-tax issue?
Our CA-led litigation team handles notices, scrutiny, penalties and appeals (CIT(A) & ITAT) end-to-end.
✅ Defend a reassessment (Sec 148) notice → 💬 Ask our CA
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.
Contact Careers Media / Press · Privacy Terms Refund Cancellation Cookies Disclaimer
© 2026 EaseValue Advisors LLP · LLPIN ACN-4920 · Jaipur, Rajasthan