SHIV METTALICKS PVT LTD. V. PRINCIPAL COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX, SAMBALPUR

WP(C)/36314/2022

AI Insights

The case involves Shiv Mettalicks Pvt. Ltd., Rourkela, as the petitioner, challenging an order under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner argued that the notice under Section 148A(b) was time-barred and constituted a 'mere change of opinion' by the Assessing Officer. The court referenced a series of precedents, including a Supreme Court order, which supported the non-interference at this stage and affirmed the need for a deeper examination of the issues at a later stage if necessary.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 747895 (HC-MISC)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 10-01-2023
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Kailash Kedia v. Income Tax Officer, Anshul Jain v. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Red Chilli International Sales v. Income Tax Officer
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: SIDHARTH SANKAR MOHAPATRA
• Assessee Lawyers: AURA MOZUMDAR; S K ACHARYA; ABHIJEET AGARWAL
• Keywords: Alternative remedy; Assessment orders; Income Tax; Section 148A(d); Writ petition
• Section: 148; 148A(d)

Judgement Text

" Page 1 of 3 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.36314 of 2022 Shiv Mettalicks Pvt. Ltd., Rourkela …. Petitioner Mr. Aura Mozumdar, Mr. S. K. Acharya and Mr. Abhijeet Agarwal, Advocates -versus- Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Sambalpur and others …. Opposite Parties Mr. Sidharth Sankar Mohapatra, Senior Standing Counsel for Income Tax Department CORAM: THE CHIEF JUSTICE JUSTICE M.S. RAMAN ORDER 10.01.2023 Order No. Dr. S. Muralidhar, CJ. 01. 1. The memo of appearance filed by Mr. Sidharth Sankar Mohapatra, learned Senior Standing Counsel for Income Tax Department-Opposite Parties is taken on record. 2. As regards the challenge to an order passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act) at an intermediate stage, this Court has in its order dated 1st December, 2022 in a batch of writ petitions of which W.P.(C) No.9191 of 2022 (Kailash Kedia v. Income Tax Officer) was a lead matter, declined to interfere relegating the parties to a stage of passing of assessment orders under Section 148 of the Act. In doing so, this Court followed the order dated 2nd September, 2022 of the Supreme Court of India in SLP(C) No.14823 of 2022 (Anshul Jain v. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax), which in turn affirmed the Page 2 of 3 judgment dated 2nd June, 2022 of the Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in CWP No.10219 of 2022 (Anshul Jain v. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax). 3. The Court’s attention has been drawn to a subsequent order dated 3rd January, 2023 of another Bench of the Supreme Court of India, the composition of which is different from the Bench which heard the aforementioned case in Anshul Jain (supra), where another order dated 2nd June, 2022 of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in CWP No.10073 of 2022 (Red Chilli International Sales v. Income Tax Officer) was challenged. In the said SLP (C) No.86 of 2023, the following order was passed by the Supreme Court of India on 3rd January, 2023: “Delay condoned. We with the petitioner that the impugned judgment rejecting the writ petition on the ground of alternative remedy does not take into consideration several judgments of this Court, on the jurisdiction of High Court, as writ petitions have been entertained to be examined whether the jurisdiction preconditions for issue of notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is satisfied. The provisions of reopening under the Income Tax Act, 1961 have undergone an amendment by the Finance Act, 2021, and consequently the matter would require a deeper and in depth consideration keeping in view the earlier case law. Accordingly, we set aside the observations made by the High Court in the impugned judgment observing that the writ petition would not be maintainable in view of the alternative remedy, clarify that this issue would be examined in depth by the High Court if and when it arise for consideration. We do deem it open to examine this issue in the present case after having examined the notice under Section 148A (b) including the annexure thereto, the reply filed by the petitioner and the order under Section 148A (d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Recording the aforesaid, the special leave petition is disposed of. We clarify that the dismissal of the special leave petition Page 3 of 3 would not be construed as a findings or observations on the merits on case. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.” 4. As the Court views it although the aforementioned order did not take note of the order of the Coordinate Bench of the Supreme Court of India in Anshul Jain (supra), the net result is that the Supreme Court of India declined to interfere with the order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Red Chilli International Sales (supra) matter. 5. Consequently, this Court is not persuaded that it should interfere with the impugned order dated 24th November, 2022 in the present case under Section 148A(d) of the Act. 6. Learned counsel for the Petitioner urges that apart from the ground that the notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act was time barred, it is also vitiated by what he terms as ‘mere change of opinion’ by the Assessing Officer. 7. Needless to say, it will be open to the Petitioner to raise all grounds available to the Petitioner in accordance with law, including the above grounds at the appropriate stage as explained by this Court in its order in Kailash Kedia (supra). 8. The petition is accordingly disposed of in the above terms. (Dr. S. Muralidhar) Chief Justice (M.S. Raman) Judge M. Panda "