The Bombay High Court has cancelled a notice of income tax asking for a reopening of the assessment on the wrong facts.
The applicant, Arvind Sahdeo Gupta. The challenge seeks in the writ petition is to the notice issued via the Income Tax Officer Ward under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
An additional consequence request asks that the completed evaluation be invalidated.
The notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act of 1961 is being contested primarily on the grounds that it was based on false information, that no justification was provided in the decision of the petitioner’s objections to the reopening of the proceedings, and that the decision was made without the use of a speaking order.
Additionally, it was argued that the Income Tax Officer had not given any indications that would lead one to conclude that the case should be reopened without any independent application of thought.
According to Kapil Hirani, Counsel for the Petitioner, the Assessing Officer dismissed the Petitioner’s concerns without issuing a spoken order, which was contradictory to the abovementioned orders.
In addition to the foregoing, it was claimed that the ITO provided no reasons for dismissing the objections. The transaction in question was for the Fiscal Year 2012-13, not the Fiscal Year 2013-14. This component got to the root of the situation, yet it was not taken into account.
Additionally, it was claimed that the notification sent in accordance with Section 148 of the Income Tax Act might be invalidated. The challenge in the current proceedings was limited to the constitutionality of the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, even though the assessment had been completed by passing order and the petitioner had filed an appeal out of an abundance of caution.
There is a fundamental factual error in the notice. In actions of writ jurisdiction, an exceptional case would have been made, and the impugned notice provided under section 148 of the income tax would have been cancelled and set aside. The additional process performed via the respondents on the grounds of the stated notice does not have survived, witnessed by the Division Bench constituting Justices Vrushali V Joshi and AS Chandurkar.
| Case Title | Arvind Sahdeo Gupta Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward |
| Citation | WRIT PETITION NO. 4793 OF 2021 |
| Date | 08.08.2023 |
| Calcutta High Court | Read Order |
