Case LawHigh Court › Rekha Rungta v. Income Tax Officer, Ward

Rekha Rungta v. Income Tax Officer, Ward

High Court 17 Nov 2023 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · calcutta_appellate_side
Parties
Rekha Rungta v. Income Tax Officer, Ward
Date of order
17 Nov 2023
Assessment year(s)
2019-20
Outcome
Other

Case summary

In Rekha Rungta 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

17.11.2023PBSl. No.45. WPA 24060 of 2023 Rekha Rungta VsIncome Tax Officer, WardNo.40(1), Kolkata & Ors. Mr. Avra Mazumder,Ms. Alisha Das,Ms. Elina Dey,Mr. Samrat Das,Mr. Suman Bhowmik. … For the Petitioner. Mrs. Smita Das De.…….for the respondent. Heard learned advocates appearing for theparties. By this writ petition, petitioner has challengedthe impugned order under Section 148A(d) of theIncome Tax Act, 1961, dated 21[st] April, 2023 relatingto the assessment year 2019-20, on the ground thatthe aforesaid impugned order has been passed by notconsidering and even not referring two replies filed bythe petitioner dated 28[th] March, 2023 and 14[th] April,2023. Petitioner further submits that the allegation ofthe Assessing Officer against the petitioner with regardto the alleged fresh introduction of unsecured loan ofRs.61,60,658/-, the same was not substantiated bysupporting documents by the Assessing Officer and the aforesaid order is not sustainable since theaforesaid amount was already declared by thepetitioner in her return and the petitioner had alreadyfiled supporting documents. Petitioner further submitsthat the Assessing Officer has no material and has noteven disclosed the materials, if he has any, toestablish the aforesaid amount as undisclosed. Theseare matters of facts and evidence which cannot beappreciated by the writ court, but there is allegation ofviolation of principle of natural justice by theAssessing Officer in not considering the aforesaid tworeplies of the petitioner, I am of the view that thematter should be remanded back to the AssessingOfficer concerned to pass a fresh order only on theaforesaid issue by giving opportunity to the petitionerto produce relevant documents in support of its casewith regard to the aforesaid unsecured loan and theAssessing Officer shall also consider the aforesaid tworeplies filed by the petitioner before passing any freshorder on the aforesaid issue, within a period of 8weeks from the date of communication of this order. With this observation and direction, this writpetition being WPA 24060 of 2023 is disposed 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