Case Law Details
Rahul Saraf Vs ACIT (Calcutta High Court)
In the case of Rahul Saraf Vs ACIT, the Calcutta High Court has stayed the assessment order issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act for the Assessment Year 2017-18. The stay was granted due to a jurisdictional error. The petitioner challenged the notice dated April 10, 2024, arguing that it was issued in violation of the faceless assessment requirement stipulated by Section 151A following a notification from March 29, 2022. The court noted that a prima facie case was present and referenced a similar case, Girdhar Gopal Dalmia v. Union of India. Consequently, the notice issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer was stayed pending the final resolution of the petition. Both parties have been instructed to file their affidavits within specified timelines, and further proceedings are to be scheduled post-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 10th April, 2024 for the Assessment Year 2017-18, by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer.
3. Mr. Mazumder, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner would submit 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 in a faceless manner as provided therein.
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. Rai, learned advocate enters appearance on behalf of the respondents.
6. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and since the jurisdictional issue has been raised, I am of the view that the present writ petition should be heard.
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 10th April, 2024, is required to be and is 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 after expiry of the period for exchange of affidavits.
Author Bio
