9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (6) TMI 485 - HC - Income TaxValidity of reopening of assessment - notice u/s 148A(b) to non existing entity - HELD THAT - Notice issued in the name of non-existing entity and which has already been amalgamated on 16th September, 2019 with retrospective effect from 1st April, 2018. It appears from record that against the very same non-existing entity, a notice under Section 148 of the Act was quashed by this court by the order 2022 (3) TMI 1532 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT and in spite of quashing of such notice by this court on earlier occasion, again the assessing officer has issued the impugned notice dated 27th May, 2022 against the very same non-existing entity. Such conduct reflect, total non-application of mind by the AO, and rather it is contumacious also and in total disregard and defiance of earlier of the order of this court. Thus quashing the aforesaid impugned notice u/s 148A(b) of the Act and all subsequent proceedings and allowing this writ petition by imposing personal cost of Rs.20,000/- upon Assessing Officer,Bitan Roy, Ward No .V(1), Kolkata which is to be realised from his salary and to be paid to the petitioner.
Issues:
Challenging impugned notice under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for assessment year 2015-16 due to issuance in the name of a non-existing entity already amalgamated with retrospective effect. Analysis: The petitioner challenged the notice issued under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated 27th May, 2022, pertaining to the assessment year 2015-16. The challenge was based on the grounds that the notice was issued in the name of a non-existing entity that had been amalgamated on 16th September, 2019, with retrospective effect from 1st April, 2018. The High Court noted that a previous notice under Section 148 of the Act against the same non-existing entity had been quashed by the court in a prior order dated 2nd March, 2022. Despite the earlier quashing of the notice, the assessing officer, Bitan Roy, issued the impugned notice dated 27th May, 2022, against the same non-existing entity. The court criticized this conduct as reflecting a total lack of application of mind by the assessing officer, amounting to contumacious behavior and a blatant disregard of the court's earlier order. Notably, the court had previously imposed personal costs of Rs.10,000/- on Bitan Roy in a separate case, indicating a pattern of non-compliance. The High Court, after considering the facts and submissions of the parties, disposed of the writ petition by quashing the impugned notice dated 27th May, 2022, under Section 148A(b) of the Act and all subsequent proceedings. Additionally, the court allowed the writ petition by imposing a personal cost of Rs.20,000/- on Bitan Roy, Ward No. V(1), Kolkata. The court directed that this cost be realized from Bitan Roy's salary and paid to the petitioner. Furthermore, the court ordered that a copy of the judgment be communicated to the Principal Chief CIT, West Bengal and Sikkim, by the office of the Ministry of Law and Justice, for necessary action and to ensure compliance within the department.
|
