Reassessment Order Passed Without Issuance of Section 148 Notice Is Not Valid: Calcutta High Court
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Md. Nizamuddin has ruled that the reassessment order passed without issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act is not valid. The petitioner/assessee challenged the assessment order on the ground that it was passed without serving any notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which is a condition precedent for...
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Md. Nizamuddin has ruled that the reassessment order passed without issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act is not valid.
The petitioner/assessee challenged the assessment order on the ground that it was passed without serving any notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which is a condition precedent for initiating proceedings under Section 147 of the Act.
The petitioner after getting the assessment order has made several correspondences asking the Assessing Officer to provide documents in support of proof of service of the notice under Section 148 of the Act. The Assessing Officer failed to provide any such document to establish that the impugned notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act was served upon the petitioner before passing the assessment order.
The department could not contradict the allegations of non-serving reassessment notice.
The court set aside the assessment order and the case was remanded to the Assessing Officer to pass a fresh re-assessment order in accordance with law by proceeding from the stage of issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act.
The court directed the Assessing Officer to proceed with the reassessment proceeding in accordance with law and by observing the principle of natural justice.
Case Title: Govardhan Commodities Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Assistant/Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 176
Citation: W.P.A. 7334 of 2022
Dated: 29.04.2022
Counsel For Petitioner: Advocate Avra Mazumder, K. Roy, B. Gupta, Sk. Md. Bilwal Hossain
Counsel For Respondent: Advocate Smita Das De