Case Law Details
Girdhar Gopal Dalmia Vs. Union of India & Ors. (Calcutta High Court)
Calcutta High Court judgment on Girdhar Gopal Dalmia vs. Union of India, clarifying that objection rejection doesn’t conclude reassessment or demand. Full analysis included.
Introduction: The Calcutta High Court recently delivered a significant judgment in the case of Girdhar Gopal Dalmia vs. Union of India & Ors., addressing the petitioner’s challenge to a notice issued under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner contested the timeline for response and the lack of an opportunity for a hearing in the notice dated 17th March, 2022.
Detailed Analysis: The petitioner argued that the notice, pertaining to the assessment year 2018-19, did not comply with Section 148A(b) as it provided six days instead of the mandated seven days for response. Additionally, the petitioner claimed a lack of opportunity for a hearing as required by the Act. The respondent Assessing Officer responded, citing that the notice was served via e-mail, ensuring timely receipt.
The High Court, upon thorough analysis, upheld the Assessing Officer’s decision, emphasizing that the date of e-mail receipt validated the seven-day response window. The court also clarified that the rejection of the petitioner’s objection to the 148A notice did not signify the finalization of a reassessment order or the raising of a demand.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
