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

2024 Supreme(Cal) 72

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT CALCUTTA
T.S. Sivagnanam, Supratim Bhattacharya, JJ.
Champa Impex Private Limited - Petitioner
Versus
Union Of India And Others – Respondents
A.P.O. NO. 124 OF 2023 (IA NO: GA/1/2023)
Decided On : 17-01-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Pranit Bag, Adv., Mr. Anujit Mookherjee, Adv., Mr. Prithish Chandra, Adv.,
For the Respondent: Mr. Vipul Kundalia, Sr. Adv., Mr. Anurag Roy, Adv.

IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the notice issued under Section 148A(b) pertained only to the assessment year 2016-2017, and the assessing officer followed the procedure under Section 148A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 scrupulously.

Headnote:

Income Tax Act - Re-assessment Proceedings - Section 148A(d) - [HIGH VALUE CASH DEPOSIT] - [Income Tax Act, 1961, Section 148A(d)] - The court dismissed the appeal challenging the order passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessing officer issued a notice under Section 148A(b) for the assessment year 2016-2017 based on high value cash deposits during the demonetization period. The court found that the notice pertained only to the assessment year 2016-2017 and upheld the order passed under Section 148A(d).

Fact of the Case:

The assessing officer issued a notice under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 2016-2017 based on high value cash deposits during the demonetization period. The appellant challenged the order passed under Section 148A(d) of the Act, contending that the notice called for information for multiple assessment years and was time-barred.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the notice pertained only to the assessment year 2016-2017 and upheld the order passed under Section 148A(d) of the Act. The appellant was directed to participate in the re-assessment proceedings and cooperate with the assessing officer.

Issues: The issues involved the validity of the notice issued under Section 148A(b) and the jurisdiction of the assessing officer to initiate re-assessment proceedings for the assessment year 2016-2017.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the notice pertained only to the assessment year 2016-2017 and rejected the appellant's contention that the notice called for information for multiple assessment years. The court also found that the assessing officer followed the procedure under Section 148A of the Act scrupulously.

Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was directed to participate in the re-assessment proceedings and cooperate with the assessing officer.

JUDGMENT :

T.S. Sivagnanam, J.

1. This intra court appeal by the writ petitioner is directed against the order dated 19.07.2023 in WPO No. 1294 of 2023. The said writ petition was filed by the appellant challenging an order passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act for brevity).

2. As could be seen from the grounds canvassed in the writ petition as well as from the submissions made by Mr. Pranit Bag, learned advocate appearing for the appellant writ petitioner, the case of the appellant is that the respondent assessing authority had failed to consider that information for several assessment years cannot be called for as has been done in the notice issued under Section 148A(b) of the Act dated 31.03.2023. It is further submitted that no information could be sought for separately for the assessment year 2018-2019 since the appeal is pending before the appellate authority and the re-assessment proceedings in relation to the said year has been challenged by the appellant before this court and by order dated 15.03.2022,the matter stood remanded back to the assessing officer.

3. It is further submitted that the notice dated 31.03.2023 issued under Section 148A(b) of the Act cannot be modified or amended by a subsequent communication and the only option available was to drop the proceedings and issue fresh notice if the same is permissible under law. Further it is contended that the respondent assessing officer did not conduct any independent investigation or enquiry under Section 148A(a) of the Act before initiating proceedings by issuance of a notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act. Further it is contended that the re-assessment proceeding is time barred and cannot be carried on against the appellant.

4. Mr. Vipul Kundalia, learned senior standing counsel appearing for the respondent on the other hand would contend that the notice issued under Section 148A(b) of the Act was pertaining to the assessment year 2016-2017 as is evident from the notice and the assessing officer has not called for information for multiple assessment years as alleged by the appellant. It is further submitted that after the receipt of the notice, the assessee had sent their objection/interim reply dated 20.04.2023 for which an appropriate reply was given by the assessing officer by email dated 20.04.2023 clearly mentioning that the information sought for was in respect of cash deposits during the financial year 2015-2016 pertaining to the assessment year 2016-2017. Inspite of such clarification, the assessee submitted further objection on 29.04.2023 which was considered by the assessing officer and an order under Section 148A(d) of the Act was passed on 07.05.2023 which was impugned in the writ petition. The learned Single Bench after noting the facts clearly held that notice for commencement of re-assessment was not issued for multiple years and the case as projected by the appellant is baseless and frivolous and rightly dismissed the writ petition. It is further submitted that the appellant will have adequate opportunity in the re-assessment proceedings in which it will be well open to the appellant to place all documents in support of their contention and face the re-assessment proceedings. With the above submissions, the learned counsel prayed for dismissal of this appeal.

5. We have heard Mr. Pranit Bag, learned advocate appearing for the appellant and Mr. Vipul Kundalia, learned senior standing counsel appearing for the respondent.

6. The assessing officer issued notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act dated 31.03.2023. The notice mentions the assessment year as 2016-2017.The main ground of suspicion based on which such notice was issued pertain to high value cash deposit during the demonetization period from March 2016 to March 2017 in two bank accounts where the total credit and debit turnover was Rs. 87.69 crores and Rs. 85.86 crores out of which cash deposit of Rs. 20.51 crores and RTGS debit was Rs. 61.65 crores. The annexure to

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