2022 (10) TMI 360 - HC - Income Tax

Validity of order passed u/s 148A - Order challenged on the ground that the same being without jurisdiction and contrary to the provision of Section 149(1)(a) and (b) by contending that admittedly the impugned notice has been issued after the expiry of three years from the end of relevant assessment year and it is also an admitted position which appears from the conclusion of the assessing officer himself in the impugned order that the alleged escapement of income which is below Rs.50 lakh - HELD THAT - Considering the submission of the parties and admitted factual and legal position which appears on perusal of the impugned order dated 28th July, 2022, impugned order is bad and not sustainable in law and is liable to be quashed for the reason that the impugned notice under Section 148A(b) under the newly amended Act was issued after expiry of three years from the end of relevant assessment year and the alleged escapement of income is below Rs.50 lakh. In view of the discussion made above, this writ petition is disposed of by quashing the aforesaid impugned order dated 28th July, 2022 under Section 148A(d) of the Act.

Summary

Issues involved: Challenge to impugned order under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for assessment year 2016-17.

Analysis:
1. Jurisdiction of the Impugned Order:
The petitioner challenged the impugned order dated 28th July, 2022 under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2016-17. The petitioner contended that the impugned notice was issued after the expiry of three years from the end of the relevant assessment year, which contravened the provisions of Section 149(1)(a) and (b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessing officer himself acknowledged that the alleged escapement of income was below Rs.50 lakh. The court, after considering the submissions and the legal position, held that the impugned order was without jurisdiction and contrary to the law. It was deemed not sustainable and liable to be quashed.

2. Validity of the Impugned Order:
Upon perusal of the impugned order dated 28th July, 2022, the court found that the notice under Section 148A(b) of the newly amended Act was issued after the expiration of three years from the relevant assessment year. Additionally, the alleged escapement of income was below Rs.50 lakh. Based on these findings, the court concluded that the impugned order was flawed and not legally sustainable. Consequently, the court disposed of the writ petition by quashing the impugned order under Section 148A(d) of the Act.

In conclusion, the High Court of Calcutta, in its judgment, addressed the challenge to the impugned order under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 2016-17. The court found the impugned order to be without jurisdiction and contrary to the law as it was issued after the expiry of the prescribed period and the alleged escapement of income was below the specified threshold. Therefore, the court quashed the impugned order, emphasizing the importance of adherence to statutory provisions and jurisdictional requirements in tax matters.