SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2021 Supreme(Cal) 275

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
MD. NIZAMUDDIN, J.
Unisource Hydro Carbon Services Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
Union of India & Ors. - Respondents
W.P. A No. 11041 of 2021
Decided On : 25-08-2021

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. R.N. Dutta, Adv., Ms. Sutapa Roychowdhury, Adv., Mr. Abhijit Das, Adv.
For the Respondents: Mr. S.N. Dutta, Adv., Mr. Asok Bhowmik, Adv.

Point of Law: Assessment - Ground of violation of principle of natural justice-not giving adequate and effective opportunity of hearing not made out - series of adjournments were granted on the prayer of the petitioner from time to time and the petitioner did not comply with many notices.

Headnote:

Income Tax Act, 1961 - Section 143 (3) read with Section 144 B - Assessment - Ground of violation of principle of natural justice-not giving adequate and effective opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and also on merit of the Assessment Order on the ground that the assessing officer has committed jurisdictional error and that the alternative remedy is no bar in entertaining this Writ Petition since violation of natural justice is a jurisdictional error.

Finding of the Court: Case where no opportunity of hearing was provided to the petitioner and that there was any violation of principle of natural justice. It is established from record that series of adjournments were granted on the prayer of the petitioner from time to time and the petitioner did not comply with many notices and sometime in response to some of the notices on some occasion replied to the show-cause notice in detail and furnished material evidence and documents in support of its case before the Assessing Officer in course of impugned assessment proceeding. In my considered opinion petitioner could not make out a case of any patent jurisdictional error or that the assessing officer acted contrary to any specific provision of law in course of the impugned assessment proceeding - sufficient opportunities of hearing were given to the petitioner and there was no violation of principles of natural justice in course of impugned assessment proceeding and in passing the assessment order and in the instant case it cannot be said that the assessing officer/respondent concerned who passed the assessment order was having inherent lack of jurisdiction or his action in course of impugned assessment proceeding was contrary to any specific provision of law and the impugned assessment order is not liable to be interfered with in constitutional writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Result: Petition dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

Md. Nizamuddin, J.

(Through Video Conference)

1. Heard learned Advocates appearing for the parties.

2. In the instant Writ Petition petitioner has challenged the impugned Assessment Order dated 4th June, 2021 relating to Assessment Year 2018-19 under Section 143 (3) read with Section 144 B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on the alleged ground of violation of principle of natural justice by the respondent concerned by not giving adequate and effective opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and also on merit of the Assessment Order on the ground that the assessing officer has committed jurisdictional error and that the alternative remedy is no bar in entertaining this Writ Petition since violation of natural justice is a jurisdictional error.

3. It appears from the impugned Assessment Order being Annexure – ‘P-7’ at page – 111 of the Writ Petition that the aforesaid impugned order which is of about 17 pages containing elaborate discussion covering material evidence and considering the documents filed by the petitioner in course of the assessment proceeding before passing the impugned Assessment Order. Petitioner was granted ample opportunity of hearing from time to time in course of impugned assessment proceeding which would appear from records being documents annexed to the Writ Petition by the petitioner itself which will be referred and discussed below.

4. It appears that a notice under Section 143 (2) of the Act was issued on 22nd September, 2019 being Annexure -‘P-2’ to the Writ Petition seeking clarification on the issue of investments/advancements/loans and business loss in response to the return in question of the petitioner. It appears at page – 42 of the Writ Petition that a notice under Section 142 (1) of the Act was issued on 30th November, 2020 asking the petitioner to furnish the relevant documents referred there on or before 15th December, 2021. It appears at page – 48 of the Writ Petition that on 16th December, 2020 another notice under Section 142 (1) of the Act was issued for furnishing the documents in question since there was non compliance to the earlier notice under Section 143 of the Act which was duly served upon the petitioner via e-mail on 22nd September, 2019 and it had been also recorded in Annexure –‘P-2’ to the notice dated 16th December, 2020 that the earlier notice dated 30th November, 2021 issued under Section 142 of the Act was also not complied with though the date of compliance of the said notice was fixed on 16th December, 2020 and specifically recorded that final opportunity of being heard was being allowed to the petitioner to submit the details as called for by earlier notice dated 30th November, 2020 online by 20th December, 2020. It appears at page 50 of the Writ Petition that another notice under Section 142 (1) dated 18th January, 2021 of the Act was issued asking the petitioner to furnish the complete details as called for by the earlier notice dated 30th November, 2020, by 20th January, 2021. It appears at page – 52 of the Writ Petition that another notice under Section 142 (1) of the Act was issued on 20th January, 2021 for furnishing on or before 4th March, 2021 the accounts and documents specified in the annexure to the said notice. It appears at page – 54 of the Writ Petition that on 11th February, 2021 a further notice under Section 142 (1) of the Act was issued for compliance on or before 17th December, 2021 by furnishing the documents referred in annexure to the said notice. It appears from Annexure – ‘P-4’ at page – 66 of the Writ Petition that the petitioner had filed an application making prayer for granting further adjournment and extension of time till 24th May, 2021 for filing reply to the show-cause notice under Section 143 (3) of the Act, dated 23rd April, 2021.

5. The petitioner has annexed one Covid Test Report dated 5th May, 2021 as appeared at page – 68 of the Writ Petition of one Mr. Shyam Sundar Chowkhani claiming to be erstwhile director for the first time bef

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top