Case Law Details
Nava Diganta Builders & Ors. Vs Union of India & Ors. (Calcutta High Court)
The Calcutta High Court has stayed the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer for the Assessment Year 2017-18. The petitioners challenged the notice, arguing that it violated Section 151A of the Act, which mandates that such notices be issued through automated allocation as part of a risk management strategy and in a faceless manner as specified in Section 144B. The court acknowledged the jurisdictional issue raised and noted a prima facie case, referencing a similar order passed by the Division Bench in a previous case. Consequently, the court stayed the impugned notice until the writ petition is resolved or further orders are issued. The respondents have been given six weeks to file an affidavit-in-opposition, followed by four weeks for the petitioners to file a reply. The case will proceed upon the exchange of affidavits.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
1. Affidavit of service filed in Court today on behalf of the petitioner is taken on record.
2. The present writ petition has been filed, inter alia, challenging the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “said Act”) dated 31st March, 2024 for the Assessment Year 2017-18 by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer.
3. Ray, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that in terms of Section 151A of the said Act, consequent upon publication of the notification dated 29th March, 2022 a notice under Section 148 can only be issued through automated allocation, in accordance with risk management strategy formulated by the Board as referred to in Section 148 of the said Act, for issuance of notice, in a faceless manner, to extent provided in Section 144B of the said Act with reference to making assessment or reassessment of total income or loss of assessee.
4. Having regard to the aforesaid, it is submitted that the notice under Section 148 issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer is without jurisdiction and should be stayed pending disposal of this petition.
5. Mr. Dutt, learned advocate enters appearance on behalf of the respondents.
6. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and since, a jurisdictional issue has been raised, I am of the view that the present writ petition should be heard upon exchange of affidavits.
7. Taking note of the prima facie case and the order passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of Girdhar Gopal Dalmia v. Union of India, (MAT 1690 of 2023) on 25th September, 2023, I am of the view that the impugned notice issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer under Section 148 of the said Act dated 31st March, 2024, is required to be stayed till the disposal of the writ petition or until further order whichever is earlier.
8. Let affidavit-in-opposition to the present writ petition be filed within a period of six weeks from date. Reply thereto, if any, be filed within four weeks thereafter.
9. Liberty to mention upon expiry of the period for exchange of affidavits.
Author Bio
