Case Law Details
Expandable Enterprises Private Limited Vs ITO (Calcutta High Court)
Introduction: In the case of Expandable Enterprises Private Limited vs. ITO, the Calcutta High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging an order under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, due to the jurisdiction of the “Specified Authority” remaining unchallenged. The order was passed after taking approval from the “Specified Authority” and considering the petitioner’s objection.
Analysis: The petitioner contested the legality and merits of the approval given by the “Specified Authority” but did not question the authority’s jurisdiction. Upon examining Sections 151(i) and 151(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which clarify the identity of the “Specified Authority” for Sections 148 and 148A of the Act, the court found that the jurisdiction of the “Specified Authority” had not been challenged. The case highlights the importance of challenging the jurisdiction if the legality of an authority’s action is in question, and its dismissal reasserts the court’s position that an unchallenged jurisdiction cannot be grounds for a writ petition.
Conclusion: The Calcutta High Court’s decision in the case of Expandable Enterprises Private Limited vs. ITO reaffirms the fundamental principle that a writ petition cannot proceed if the jurisdiction of the concerned authority remains unchallenged. It emphasises that a legal challenge to an order or decision must adequately address all potential aspects, including the jurisdiction of the decision-making authority, to be entertained in court.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Heard learned Advocates appearing for the parties.
By this writ petition, petitioner has challenged the impugned order under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 12th April, 2023, relating to assessment year 2019-20, which has been passed after taking approval from “Specified Authority” on 12th April, 2023 and after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and considering the objection/reply filed under Section 148A(b) of the Act. What petitioner is challenging in this writ petition is not the jurisdiction of the “Specified Authority” who has approved rather petitioner has challenged the legality and merits of the approval itself.
On perusal of Section 151(i) and 151(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which simply says as to who will be the “Specified Authority” for the purposes of Section 148 and Section 148A of the Act and in this case jurisdiction of the “Specified Authority” who has approved for the purpose of Section 148 and 148A has not been challenged.
In view of the discussion made above, I am not inclined to entertain this writ petition and accordingly, this writ petition being WPA 10667 of 2023 is dismissed.
