Leoline Developers Pvt Ltd V. Union of India

WPO/1960/2022

AI Insights

In the case of Leoline Developers Pvt Ltd vs Union of India, the petitioner challenged a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, arguing that it was issued without following the mandatory procedure outlined in the recently amended Section 148A. The petitioner provided supporting documents through a supplementary affidavit to demonstrate that the final assessment order had not been passed. The court referenced similar cases, such as Bagaria Properties and Investment Private Limited & Anr. vs. Union of India & Ors. and Monoj Jain vs. Union of India, to support its decision to quash the notice and subsequent proceedings. The court's decision emphasized the importance of adhering to procedural requirements in tax assessment notices.

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 804152 (HC-MISC)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 20-04-2022
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Bagaria Properties and Investment Private Limited & Anr. vs. Union of India & Ors., Monoj Jain vs. Union of India
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: PRITHU DUDHORIA
• Assessee Lawyers: HEMANT TIWARI
• Keywords: Final Assessment Order; Impugned notice; Mandatory obligation; Quashed; Section 148; Section 148A; Supplementary Affidavit; High Court Legal Services Committee
• Section: 147; 148; 148A

Judgement Text

"OD – 16 ORDER SHEET WPO/1960/2022 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION ORIGINAL SIDE LEOLINE DEVELOPERS PVT LTD VS UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE MD. NIZAMUDDIN Date : 20th April, 2022. Appearance: Mr. Hemant Tiwari, Adv. …For the Petitioner Mr. Prithu Dudhoria, Adv. …For the U.O.I. The Court : In this matter, petitioner has filed supplementary affidavit with supporting document to show that final assessment order has not been passed in this matter, which may be kept with the records. Heard learned advocates appearing for the parties. In this matter, petitioner has challenged the impugned notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which was issued after 31st March, 2021 with supporting documents on the ground that this case clearly falls under the newly amended act relating to proceedings under Section 147 of the Act and under which there is a mandatory obligation on the part of the assessing officer to issue notice under Section 148A of the Act before issuing any notice under Section 148 of the Act and which has admittedly not done by the assessing officer 2 and the impugned notice under Section 148 of the Act has been issued violation of Section 148A of the Act. Furthermore this case is directly covered by the orders of this Court in the case of Bagaria Properties and Investment Private Limited & Anr. vs. Union of India & Ors. reported in (2022) 134 taxman.com 196 (Calcutta) and also in the case of Monoj Jain vs. Union of India reported in (2022) 134 taxman.com 173 (Calcutta). Considering these facts I hold the impugned notice under Section 148 of the Act and all subsequent proceedings are quashed. However, quashing of the impugned notice and subsequent proceedings will not debar the assessing officer concerned to issue any fresh notice in future in accordance with law. With the above observations, this Writ Petition being WPO No.1960/2022 is disposed of. This writ petition is being entertained subject to payment of cost of Rs. 5000/- to the High Court Legal Services Committee since the impugned notices under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, have been issued both on 20th April, 2021 as appear from records and this writ petition has been filed in April, 2022, that is, almost after eleven months from receipt of the impugned notices, without any explanation for such delay in filing this writ petition. Such cost has to be paid by the petitioner to the High Court Legal Services Committee within ten days from date and such cost will be utilised for the benefit and welfare of the children staying with their parents in the 3 correctional home in West Bengal. Receipt of payment is to be produced by the petitioner before this Court. List this matter as “To be Mentioned” on 2nd May, 2022 for compliance. Urgent certified photocopy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities. (MD. NIZAMUDDIN, J.) TR/ "