OD-1

ORDER SHEET WPO/901/2025

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION

ORIGINAL SIDE

MCPI PRIVATE LIMITED

VS.

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-11(1), KOLKATA &

ORS.

BEFORE:

The Hon’ble JUSTICE OM NARAYAN RAI

Date: 6th January, 2026.

Mr. J. P. Khaitan, Sr. Adv., Mr. Pratyush Jhunjhunwala, Ms. Akshara

Shukla, Mr. Aritra Nag, Advocates for the petitioner.

Mr. Prabir Kumar Bhowmick, Ms. Aishwarya Rajyashree, Mr. Vivek

Gupta, Advocates for the respondent/revenue authorities.

The Court : Affidavit of service filed today be kept with the records.

This writ petition assails a notice issued under Section 148 of the

Income Tax Act, 1961 whereby proceedings for reassessment of the

petitioner’s income for the assessment year 2020-21 have been initiated.

Mr. Khaitan, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner

submits that the notice impugned has been issued without the Assessing Officer having in its possession information suggesting escapement of income in terms of Section 148 of the said Act of 1961. It is submitted that in such view of the matter, the notice is wholly without jurisdiction. It is further submitted that upon receipt of the said notice, the petitioner wrote to the Assessing Officer seeking the reasons based on which the said notice

had been issued. Such reasons were supplied to the petitioner whereupon the petitioner raised its objection thereto but such objection has not been disposed of as yet.

Mr. Khaitan has taken this Court through the reasons which form the basis of the issuance of the impugned notice to show cause and has submitted that the revenue authorities have sought to reopen the petitioner’s case on the assumption that one Garden Silk Mills Private Limited has routed funds to Invent Group through a network of connected entities including the petitioner in order to help Invent Group to acquire a non-performing account/asset of Garden Silk Mills Private Limited. It is submitted that prior to the issuance of the impugned notice under Section 148 of the said Act of 1961, the petitioner had been issued a summons under Section 131(1A) of the said Act of 1961 calling upon the petitioner to answer certain queries raised therein. The petitioner responded to the same thereby providing detailed replies and indicating that the petitioner had no connection whatsoever with the Invent Group of Companies or Garden Silk Mills Private Limited and that the funds that had been provided to Invent Assets Securitisation and Reconstruction Private Limited (hereafter “Invent”) by way of loan had been so provided by the petitioner from its own resources.

It is submitted that the petitioner’s replies to the various queries put forth by the respondent/revenue authorities by way of their notice under Section 131(1A) of the said Act of 1961 have not at all been considered and the same would be apparent from the reasons that have been proffered by the revenue authorities in support of the impugned notice under Section

148 of the said Act of 1961.

It is further submitted that apart from the summons issued under Section 131(1A) of the said Act of 1961 the petitioner had also received a notice under Section 133(6) of the said Act of 1961 from the Central Circle-1(4), Mumbai whereby information pertaining to the petitioner’s transactions with Invent and its group entities had been called for. The petitioner replied to the said notice in details by a letter dated November 18, 2022. It is submitted by Mr. Khaitan that none of the aforesaid replies have been considered by the respondent/revenue authorities before issuing the notice under Section 148 of the said Act of 1961.

In support of his submission that the Assessing Officer must apply its mind to the information provided by the petitioner and to the replies furnished by the petitioner in response to the notice issued by the respondent/revenue authorities prior to issuance of notice under Section

148 of the said Act of 1961, Mr. Khaitan relies on the following judgments:

i. Be