N.22Sl WPA 23800 of 2025

151/CL

16.02.26 Babylon Trading & Investment Pvt. Ltd.

Sl-22 v.

Ct.551 Union of India & Ors.

(S.R.)

Mr. Avra Mazumder Ms. A. Das Mr. Suman Bhowmik Ms. Elina Dey Ms. Supomita Ghosh … for the petitioner.

Mr. Shiv Shankar Banerjee Mr. Kuntal Goswami … for the Income Tax Authority.

1. This writ petition lays challenge to an order dated December 30, 2024 passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter the ‘said Act of 1961’) and the consequential notice under Section 148 of the said Act of 1961 issued on the same date for the assessment year 2015-2016.

2. Mr. Mazumder, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the order and the notice impugned suffer from serious jurisdictional errors. It is submitted that firstly, the order granting approval for issuance of notice under Section 148 of the said Act of 1961 has never been served upon the petitioner.

3. In support of his contention that non-supply of the order under Section 151 of the said Act of 1961 thereby approving issuance of reopening notice under Section 148 of the said Act of 1961 constitutes a jurisdictional defect, Mr. Mazumder relies on two orders of a Coordinate Bench of this Court in WPA 1690 of 2025 (Parveen Jhawar v. Union of India & Ors.) and WPA 20316 of 2025 (Asif Ahmed v. Union of India & Ors.) wherein the Coordinate Bench upon taking note of a judgment delivered by the Hon’ble High Court at Delhi in the case of Tia Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer, reported at (2024) 468 ITR 5 (2023) SCC OnLine Delhi 6835 and a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Income Tax Officer v. Tia Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. reported at (2024) 468 ITR 10 : 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2947 passed an interim order staying the notice under Section 148 of the said Act of 1961.

4. It is next submitted that the proceeding pertains to the assessment year 2015-16 and that being so, the same ought to have been initiated latest by March 31, 2022 in terms of the provisions of Section 149 of the aid Act of 1961. It is submitted that the notice to show cause under Section 148A(b) was issued on November 6, 2024 and the order impugned under Section 148A(d) as well the reopening notice under Section 148 have been issued on December 30, 2024 - all of which are way beyond the statutory time.

5. It is next submitted that the order impugned as well as the reopening notice have been issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer and not the Faceless Assessment Unit in terms of Section 151A of the said Act of 1961.

6. It is further submitted by Mr. Mazumder that the petitioner’s request for cross-examination of the witnesses whose statements have been relied on by the Assessing Officer in passing the order impugned under Section 148 A(d) of the said Act of 1961 has not been considered at all.

7. Mr. Banerjee, learned advocate appearing for the respondent Income Tax Authorities seeks time to file affidavit-in-opposition to the writ petition. He submits that he would be able to demonstrate that the petitioner’s contention does not hold much water.

8. Heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and considered the materials on record.

9. At the moment, there is nothing on record to demonstrate that the order of approval under Section 151 had had been served upon the petitioner. Furthermore this Court is also of the, prima facie, view that the reassessment proceeding for the Assessment Year 2015-16 may be hit by the bar of limitation as the same has been initiated after March 31, 2022. However, the final decision on all such aspects can be taken only after exchange of affidavits. Since an arguable case has been made out by the petitioner, the notice dated December 30, 2024 issued under Section 148 of the said Act of 1961 for the assessment year 2015-16 shall remain stayed till disposal of the writ petition.

10. Let affidavit-in-opposition to the writ petition be filed within four weeks from date. Affidavit-in- reply thereto, if any, be file