Case Law Details
Arissan Energy Limited Vs Union of India (Calcutta High Court)
Introduction: The Calcutta High Court recently dismissed a writ petition challenging an order under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The case, Arissan Energy Limited Vs Union of India, centered around the petitioner’s belief that their objections hadn’t been duly considered, and there was insufficient evidence to proceed with the order.
Analysis: The court found the impugned order neither violated principles of natural justice nor contradicted any law or jurisdiction. Interestingly, the court held that the sufficiency of the reasons and findings under Section 148A(d) cannot be re-evaluated or scrutinized under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The court emphasized that differing conclusions based on the objection or the material provided by the petitioner cannot be grounds to invoke Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction under Article 226. This ruling highlights the judiciary’s deference to the assessing officer’s judgment, provided that the reasons for the order are articulated. Moreover, the court pointed out that the petitioner has an ample opportunity to present its case after receiving the order.
Conclusion: The Calcutta High Court’s ruling in Arissan Energy Limited Vs Union of India serves as a precedent, affirming the limits of a writ court’s powers in examining orders under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act. It reinforces the judiciary’s respect for the due process and confirms that the writ court cannot scrutinize the assessing officer’s judgment when reasons are provided and objections considered. While the petition was dismissed, the court clarified that this would not prevent the petitioner from raising points during the impugned proceeding.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
The Court: Heard the 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 13th April, 2023 relating to assessment year 2019-20. Petitioner submits that in the impugned order petitioner’s objection has not been properly considered and there could not be any material against the petitioner to proceed with the impugned proceeding.
I have perused the aforesaid impugned order. I find that the same has neither been passed in violation of principles of natural justice nor is contrary to any provision of law nor the same is without jurisdiction. Sufficiency of the reasons and findings in the order under Section 148A(d) of the Act cannot be re-appreciated and scrutinised by this Court in exercise of Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Matter would have been different had the assessing officer not given any reason at all or had not referred the objection of the petitioner. Just by mere coming to a different conclusion on the basis of the objection or the material furnished by the petitioner cannot be a ground of invoking Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Furthermore, petitioner still has ample opportunity after the passing of the impugned order, in the subsequent proceeding, after issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act and before passing the order under Section 147 of the Act to make out its case if it has any.
In view of the discussion made above, this writ petition being WPO 1119 of 2023 is dismissed.
However dismissal of this writ petition will not be a bar on the part of the petitioner to take all the points raised in this writ petition before the assessing officer in course of impugned proceeding.
