Astbhuja Deal Trade Pvt. Ltd. V. Union of India & Ors.

WPA/18477/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Astbhuja Deal Trade Pvt. Ltd., which filed a writ petition against the Union of India and others, challenging an assessment order and a subsequent penalty imposed under the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 2014-15. The petitioner contested an assessment order dated May 16, 2023, and a penalty order dated March 22, 2024, both of which were passed under various sections of the Income Tax Act. The court found that the petitioner had an alternative remedy available through an appeal to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) but failed to utilize this remedy within the statutory period. Consequently, the court dismissed the writ petition, citing the precedent set by the Supreme Court in A.V. Venkateswaran, Collector of Customs, Bombay v. Ramchand Sobhraj Wadhwani & Anr.

• Counselvise Citation: [] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 836751 (HC-KOLKATA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 16-05-2024
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: A.V. Venkateswaran, Collector of Customs, Bombay v. Ramchand Sobhraj Wadhwani & Anr. AIR 1961 SC 1506
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: ARYAK DUTT; SUKA NYA DUTTA; RIYA KUNDU
• Assessee Lawyers: PRANIT BAG; ANUJ MISHRA; A DAS; B PATRA
• Keywords: Appeal; Assessment Order; Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal); Income Tax; Penalty; Writ petition
• Section: 147; 144; 271(1)(c); 246A; 144B

Judgement Text

"N.22Sl 151/CL 11.02.26 Sl-07 Ct.551 (S.R.) WPA 18477 of 2024 Astbhuja Deal Trade Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors. Mr. Pranit Bag Mr. Anuj Kumar Mishra Mr. A. Das Mr. B. Patra … for the petitioners. Mr. Aryak Dutt Ms. Sukanya Dutta Ms. Riya Kundu … for the respondents. 1. This writ petition has been filed assailing an assessment order dated May 16, 2023 passed under Section 147 read with Sections 144 and 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter the ‘said Act of 1961’) for the assessment year 2014-15, as well as an order dated March 22, 2024 imposing penalty passed under Section 271(1)(c) of the said Act of 1961. 2. It is noticed that the petitioner has an alternative efficacious remedy of appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) in terms of Section 246A of the said Act of 1961. Such remedy ought to have been availed within the statutory period prescribed in the said Act of 1961 itself. Since the petitioner has approached this Court much beyond the period during which the petitioner was supposed to file appeal against the assessment order (i.e. after more than one year) as also beyond Printed from counselvise.com the period within which an appeal was available against the order imposing penalty, this Court is not inclined to exercise discretion in favour of entertaining the writ petition in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of A.V. Venkateswaran, Collector of Customs, Bombay v. Ramchand Sobhraj Wadhwani & Anr. AIR 1961 SC 1506. 3. This writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. 4. This order shall, however, not preclude the petitioner from approaching the appellate authority in terms of the relevant provisions of the said Act of 1961. If the petitioner files an appeal before the appellate authority within a period of three weeks from date, the entire period during which this writ petition remained pending before this Court shall be excluded while computing the period of limitation. 5. Needless to mention that the petitioner shall be entitled to explain the delay occasioned by the petitioner in preferring the appeal before the appellate authority, by way of appropriate application which shall be considered by the appellate authority appropriately, in accordance with law. 6. It is made clear that as this Court has not exercised discretion to entertain the writ petition as indicated hereinabove, the merits of the case have not been 2 Printed from counselvise.com gone into and all points are left open to be decided by the appellate authority, in accordance with law. 7. WPA 18477 of 2024 stands dismissed with the above observations. 8. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. 9. Urgent certified photocopy of this order, if applied for, be supplied as expeditiously as possible. (Om Narayan Rai, J.) 3 Printed from counselvise.com "