Tapan Kumar Sarkar v. Income Tax Department
High Court
06 Apr 2022 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · jhar_pg
Parties
Tapan Kumar Sarkar v. Income Tax Department
Date of order
06 Apr 2022
Assessment year(s)
2015-2016
Outcome
Dismissed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Tapan Kumar Sarkar v. Income Tax Department, the High Court (2022) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.
Decision: In view of the prayer made on behalf of the writ petitioner, writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
Sections referenced in this judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P (T) No. 495 of 2022
Tapan Kumar Sarkar
---
--- Petitioner
Versus
1. Income Tax Department through its National Faceless Assessment
Centre, Delhi
2. Principal Commissioner of Income-tax, ReAC (RU), Jamshedpur
3. Additional / Joint / Deputy / Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax /
Income-tax Officer, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi
4. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle-3, Jamshedpur
5. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle-3, Jamshedpur
--- --- Respondents
---
CORAM: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Roshan
Through: Video Conferencing
---
For the Petitioner: Mr. Kumar Vaibhav, Advocate For the Resp.-CGST: Mr. Rahul Lamba, Advocate
----
02 / 06.04.2022 Surviving defect relating to address of the respondent nos. 1 and 3 is
ignored.
2. Writ petition has been preferred for the following relief (s).
(a) For quashing the order dated 20.12.2021 (Annexure-11 hereto) contained in letter no ITBA/ASTIF/17/2021 22/1037960226(1) whereby the objections preferred by the Petitioner to reassessment notice for the Assessment Year 2015-2016 have been rejected and issuance of notice under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 has been held to be legal and valid;
(b) For quashing the entire proceedings for reassessment of the Petitioner pertaining to Assessment Year 2015-2016 including (i) the notice under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 dated 30.032021 bearing number ITBA/AST/S/148/2020-21/1031902784(1) [Annexure-6 hereto], and (ii) the notice under section 142(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 dated 26.01.2022 bearing number ITBA/AST/F/142(1)/2021-22/1039093430(1) [Annexure-12 hereto]’
(C) For a direction upon the Respondents to produce entire records pertaining to recording of satisfaction under section 151 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for reassessment of the Petitioner pertaining to AssessmentYear 2015-2016;
(d) For a declaration that the entire proceedings for reassessment of the Petitioner pertaining to Assessment Year 2015-2016 is wholly without jurisdiction and is in contravention of the Income-tax Act, 1961 including sections 147, 148 and 151;
(e) During the pendency of the instant writ petition, for an appropriate interim order staying the further proceedings of reassessment of the Petitioner pertaining to Assessment Year 2015-2016 and further interim order staying the operation of the notice under section 142(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 dated 26.01.2022 bearing number ITBA/AST/F/142(1)/2021-22/1039093430(1) [Annexure-12 hereto];
3. However, learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Kumar Vaibhav submits that during pendency of the writ petition, assessment order has been passed by the Respondent No. 3 in reassessment proceedings under section 147 read with section 142(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961. Therefore, he seeks permission to withdraw this application with liberty to assail the assessment order and initiation of proceedings under section 147 of the I.T. Act before the competent authority in accordance with law.
4. Learned counsel for the Respondent Income Tax Department Mr. Rahul Lamba does not have any objection to the prayer. Lamba does not have any objection to the prayer.
5. In view of the prayer made on behalf of the writ petitioner, writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn. It is open for the petitioner to pursue his legal remedy, as is permissible in law. is dismissed as withdrawn. It is open for the petitioner to pursue his legal remedy, as is permissible in law.
(Aparesh Kumar Singh, J)
Ranjeet/
(Deepak Roshan, J)
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.