RITUSHREE VINCOM PRIVATE LIMITED V. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 12/1 AND ORS

WPO/387/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Ritushree Vincom Private Limited challenging an order and subsequent notice issued by the Income Tax Officer under Sections 148A(b) and 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act for the assessment year 2017-18. The petitioner argued that their response to the notice was unjustly ignored by the assessing officer, who proceeded to pass the order without considering the belatedly submitted response. The court found that the assessing officer was obligated to consider the response as it was submitted before the final order was passed, especially since the submission portal remained open for the petitioner to upload their response.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 767008 (HC-MISC)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 21-05-2023
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Mallisseri Neelakandan Sankaranunni Namboodiri v. The Additional/Joint/Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax/Income Tax Officer, Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi, Anis Jalan v. Union of India & Ors.
• Laws Referred To: Section 148A(d) of the Act, Section 148A(b) of the Act, Section 148 of the Act
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: ARYAK DUTTA; RIYA KUNDU
• Assessee Lawyers: RITES GOEL; INDRANIL BANERJEE; SANTANU CHAKRABORTY
• Keywords: Adjournment; Assessment; Assessment Year 2017-18; Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction; E-proceedings; Income Tax; Notice; Response
• Section: 148; 148A(b); 148A(d)

Judgement Text

"OD–87 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION ORIGINAL SIDE WPO/387/2024 RITUSHREE VINCOM PRIVATE LIMITED VS INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 12/1 AND ORS BEFORE : THE HON’BLE JUSTICE RAJA BASU CHOWDHURY Date : 21st May, 2023 Appearance : Mr. Rites Goel, Adv. Mr. Indranil Banerjee, Adv. Mr. Santanu Chakraborty, Adv. …for petitioners Mr. Aryak Dutta, Adv. Ms. Riya Kundu, Adv. …for respondents The Court : - 1. The present petition has filed, inter alia, challenging the order dated 4th April, 2024 passed under Section 148A(d) of the said Act, for the assessment year 2017-18. 2. The petitioner’s case is that the petitioner was served with a notice dated 6th March, 2024 under Section 148A(b) of the said Act for the assessment year 2017-18. It is the petitioner’s case that in terms of the aforesaid notice under Section 148A(b), the petitioner was required to give its response by 15th March, 2024. However, since the petitioner was unable to respond within the due date, the petitioner had sought for an adjournment till 23rd March, 2024. The petitioner, however, could not file its response within the aforesaid date. 2 It was only on 27th March, 2024, that the petitioner was finally able to file its response. Such fact would corroborate from the e-proceedings response acknowledgement appearing at page 25 of the writ petition. According to the petitioner the assessing officer by ignoring the said response and by treating, the petitioner has not filed any response to the notice under Section 148A(b) of the said Act was pleased to pass an order under Section 148A(d) of the said Act on 4th April, 2024. 3. Mr. Dutt, learned Advocate representing respondents submits that inasmuch as the petitioner had sought for extension of time to file his response to the notice under Section 148A(b) of the said Act till 23rd March, 2024, the adjournment was allowed. Notwithstanding the aforesaid, the petitioner could not file its response within the 23rd March, 2024. The purported response filed by the petitioner on 27th March, 2024 was beyond the time specified. The assessing officer was not obliged to consider the said response and as such the order under Section 148A(d) was passed on 4th April, 2024, by treating, the petitioner had not filed any response to the notice under Section 148A(b) of the said Act. He submits that there is no scope for interference. The writ petition should be dismissed. 4. Heard the learned Advocates appearing for respective parties and considered the materials on record. Admittedly, in this case a notice under Section 148A(b) of the said Act was issued on 6th March, 2024. The petitioner was afforded an opportunity to file its response by 15th March, 2024, which the petitioner could not comply with. The petitioner had, however, sought for an adjournment till 23rd March, 2024, which was allowed. Despite the above the petitioner could not file its response within 23rd March, 2024. However, the 3 records reveal that petitioner in fact had uploaded its response on the portal of the respondents on 27th March, 2024. It appears that the assessing officer by ignoring the petitioner’s response had proceeded to pass the order dated 4th April, 2024, under Section 148A(d) of the said Act. In my view, once, a response is filed by the petitioner though belatedly, before passing the final order, the assessing officer was obliged and duty bound to consider the said response especially when the same was uploaded on the portal. Although, Mr. Dutt, learned Advocate representing the respondents by placing reliance on the adjournment application has tried to make out a case that the petitioner despite seeking the adjournment till 23rd March, 2024, having not filed its response within the said period, the response filed by the petitioner on 27th March, 2024 had rightly been discarded by the assessing officer, I am of the view that if the extension was granted for the petitioner to file its response by 23rd March, 2024 there was no reason for the respondents to keep the “submit response tab” open on the portal for the petitioner to file its response after 23rd March, 2024. If the petitioner has been able to file its response and to get the same uploaded on the portal, the assessing officer ought to have considered the same. The above view finds support from the judgement delivered by the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala in the case of Mallisseri Neelakandan Sankaranunni Namboodiri v. The Additional/Joint/Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax/Income Tax Officer, Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi in WPA 1693 of 2023 on 6th October, 2023 as also an unreported judgment delivered by this Court in the case of 4 Anis Jalan v. Union of India & Ors., on 6th May, 2024 in WPO/384 of 2024. 5. Having regard to the aforesaid, I am of the view that the order dated 4th April, 2024 passed under Section 148A(d) of the said Act for the assessment year 2017-18 cannot be sustained. The same is accordingly set aside. As a sequel thereto, the notice under Section 148 of the said Act dated 5th April, 2024 for the assessment year 2017-18 is also set aside. 6. The assessing officer is directed to provide an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner by making available a video conferencing link within a period of one week from the date of communication of this order and to conclude the proceedings under Section 148 of the said Act by considering the response to be given by the petitioner and by passing an order, within a period of two weeks from the date of conclusion of the hearing. 7. Since, the affidavits have not been called for, the allegations made in the petition are deemed not to have been admitted by the respondents. 8. With the above observations and direction the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Urgent certified copy of this order if applied for, be made available to the parties upon compliance of all requisite formalities. (RAJA BASU CHOWDHURY, J.) Akg/GH. "