Shri Kaustuv Ray V. Union of India and Ors.

WPO/255/2024

AI Insights

In this case, the petitioner, Shri Kaustuv Ray, challenged an assessment order issued by the Income Tax Authority for the assessment year 2021-22. The challenge was based on the grounds of violation of natural justice, specifically citing the inability to properly represent his case due to his legal consultant's custody and subsequent death in jail. The court heard arguments from both sides and found that the petitioner had not responded to the initial notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, nor sought any adjournment, which indicated a lack of engagement with the procedural requirements. The court dismissed the writ petition, allowing the petitioner to seek redress through the statutory appellate process.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 800535 (HC-MISC)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 08-04-2024
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: OMNARAYAN RAI; SOUMEN BHATTACHARJEE
• Assessee Lawyers: SOMABRATA DATTA; BISWAJIT KUMAR; VICTOR CHATTERJEE
• Keywords: Appealable order; Assessment Order; Custody; Enforcement Directorate; Income Tax; Natural Justice; Writ petition
• Section: 148; 143(3); 144B

Judgement Text

"OD –3 ORDER SHEET WPO/255/2024 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION ORIGINAL SIDE SHRI KAUSTUV RAY VS UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE MD. NIZAMUDDIN Date: 8th April, 2024. Appearance: Mr. Somabrata Datta, Adv. Mr. Biswajit Kumar, Adv. Mr. Victor Chatterjee, Adv. …For the Petitioner Mr. Om Narayan Rai, Adv. Mr. Soumen Bhattacharjee, Adv. …For the Respondents The Court: Heard learned advocates appearing for the parties. By this writ petition, petitioner has challenged the impugned assessment order dated 26th December, 2022, under Section 143(3) read with Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, relating to assessment year 2021-22 on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice by contending that petitioner could not properly represent his case since his legal consultants was taken into custody by Enforcement Directorate Authority and he expired in jail custody on 2nd February, 2024. It appears from record annexed to the writ petition that the impugned assessment order passed on 26th December, 2022 was initiated by a notice under Section 148 of the Act issued on 14th February, 2023 which was duly received by the petitioner. Mr. Rai, learned advocate representing the respondent Income Tax Authority submits that the case petitioner has tried to make out in this writ 2 petition is quite new and it is for the first time petitioner has intended to make out in this writ petition while before the Authority concerned this defence of petitioner’s tax consultant’s custody and his expiry was never brought to the notice of the Income Tax Authority concerned and furthermore petitioner in spite of receiving the impugned notice under Section 148 of the Act, dated 14th February, 2023, never responded to the same neither prayed for any adjournment nor any response to the said notice petitioner filed return which is a statutory obligation on the part of the petitioner. In addition, the impugned order is an appealable order under the Income Tax Act which I find that the same is neither without jurisdiction nor is contrary to any specific provision of law and furthermore the assessment order is based on facts and findings on material evidence and this Writ Court in exercise of its Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction under 226 of Constitution of India shall not act as an appellate authority and scrutinise those material evidence and findings which is the job of an appellate authority under the statute. I also find that the impugned assessment order has not been passed by an authority having inherent lack of jurisdiction or the impugned order there is procedural irregularity. Furthermore, it is not a case that issues raised in this writ petition cannot be adjudicated by the appellate authority having any legal bar. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submission of parties and in view of the discussion made above, I am not inclined to 3 interfere with the impugned assessment order and accordingly the writ petition being WPO 255 of 2024 is dismissed. However, dismissal of this writ petition will not be a bar on the part of the petitioner to avail statutory alternative remedy and to take all the points raised in this writ petition before the appellate authority concerned. Leave is granted to the petitioner to correct the typographical error in the prayer portion of the writ petition. (MD. NIZAMUDDIN, J.) TR/ 4 "