OD-02

WPO/489/2025

THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION

ORIGINAL SIDE

Swapanpuri Tradelink Private Limited

Versus

Union of India & Ors.

Before:

The Hon'ble JUSTICE RAJA BASU CHOWDHURY

Date: 28th August 2025

Appearance:

Mr. Rajarshi Chatterjee, Advocate

for the petitioner

Mr. Aryak Dutt, Advocate Ms. Riya Kundu, Advocate

for the respondents

The Court: 1. Challenging the issuance of a notice under section

148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the said Act”) dated 13th April 2024 for the assessment year 2017-18 the instant writ

petition has been filed.

2. It is the petitioner’s case that the petitioner was previously

served with a notice under section 148 of the said Act on 26th July 2022 in respect of the self-same assessment year. In furtherance to the aforesaid notice, the petitioner had duly filed revised return on 26th August 2022. Later a notice under section 143(2) of the said Act was issued on 17th November 2022. The petitioner claims to have complied with such notice as well. Notwithstanding the above, without any further notice to the petitioner in relation to the above proceedings a notice under section 148A(b) of the said Act was issued on 28th February 2024 in respect of the self-same assessment year which ultimately culminated

3. Mr. Chatterjee, learned advocate representing the petitioner would submit that the subsequent notice issued under section 148 of the said Act is without jurisdiction. He would submit that as and by way of abundan caution the petitioner has filed a revised return pursuant to the subsequent notice under section 148 of the said Act. Since there is a jurisdictional error the entire proceeding stands vitiated. He would submit that once a notice under section 148 of the said Act was issued the entire proceedings are reopened and the prior assessment no longer exists, in support of his aforesaid contention reliance has been placed on a judgment delivered by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Coal India Limited reported in [2023] 146 Taxmann.com 546 (Calcutta). The petitioner prays for stay of operation of the further proceedings in connection with the notice issued under section 148 of the said Act dated 13th April 2024 for the assessment year 2017-18.

4. Mr. Dutt, learned advocate appears for the Income Tax Department. By placing a copy of the order dated 2nd April 2023, he submits that the National Faceless Assessment Centre (in short ‘NFAC’) has since dropped the previous proceedings initiated in furtherance to the notice issued under section 148 of the said Act dated 26th July 2022 for the assessment year 2017-18 on the ground that the case was initiated with wrong reasons or reasons of some other case. Accordingly, there is no irregularity on the part of the assessing officer in initiating the

2024. Based on the said order the notice under section 148 dated 13th April 2024 has been issued. Mr. Dutt further submits that the petitioner has already complied with the above notice under section 148 of the said Act and has filed a revised return and at this belated stage approached this Court as and by way of an afterthought. The above proceedings cannot be permitted to continue. No interference is called for.

5. Having heard the learned advocates for the respective parties, I find that although, Mr. Dutt would intend to file affidavit-in-opposition, in my view, no fruitful purpose would be served to permit the respondents to file affidavit as by an affidavit the respondents cannot improve the case. It is well settled that an order passed by an authority cannot be improved by an affidavit. In the instant case, the order based on which the proceedings under section 148 had been dropped is already on record and as such there is no scope for improve upon the same.

6. Having thus, noted the submissions of the learned advocates representing the respective parties and considering the materials on record, I am of the view that the a