Meenakshi Tea Company Limited vs Union Of India And Ors
2023 Latest Caselaw 2 Cal/2

O-30 & 31

                 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
                  Civil Appellate Jurisdiction
                          ORIGINAL SIDE

                         APOT/223/2022
                        IA NO.GA/1/2022

                                MEENAKSHI TEA COMPANY LIMITED

                                      -Versus-

                                UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

                         APOT/224/2022
                        IA NO.GA/1/2022

                                MEENAKSHI TEA COMPANY LIMITED

                                      -Versus-

                                UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

                                                          Appearance:
                                          Mr. J. P. Khaitan, Sr. Adv.
                                           Mr. Mrigank Kejriwal, Adv.
                                                   Mr. S. Rudra, Adv.
                                                ...for the appellant.

                                     Mr. Smarajit Roychowdhury, Adv.
                                              ...for the respondent.

BEFORE:

The Hon'ble JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAM

-And-

The Hon'ble JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

Date : 2nd January, 2023.

The Court : We have heard Mr. J.P. Khaitan, learned

senior counsel assisted by Mr. Mrigank Kejriwal and Mr. Samit

Rudra, learned Advocates for the appellant and Mr. Smarajit

Roychowdhury, learned standing counsel for the respondents.

This intra-Court appeal filed by the writ petitioner is

directed against the order dated 24th November, 2022 passed in

WPO/2894/2022. Since the assessee in both the appeals are one

and the same and the legal issue raised is common, the

appellants were heard together and are disposed of by this

common judgment and order.

The appellants had challenged the order passed by the

assessing officer under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act,

1961 dated 25th July, 2022 for the assessment year 2016-17 and

dated 27th July, 2022 for the assessment year 2015-16 on the

ground that there is a jurisdictional error. The learned

Single Bench was convinced that the writ petitions have to be

entertained as there is a question of law involved in the

matter. However, the learned Single Bench declined to grant

any interim order which necessitated the appellant to file the

intra-Court appeal.

We have elaborately heard the leaned Advocates for the

parties and we are convinced that a question of law arises for

consideration in the writ petition and the learned Single Judge

rightly held so. However, in the meantime, if the re-

assessment proceedings is allowed to be proceeded further then

the writ petition itself will become infructuous. The question

of law which has been canvassed in the writ petition is as to

whether the assumption of jurisdiction by the assessing officer

under Section 148A of the Act is valid in law.

It is not in dispute that the proceedings for reopening

commenced prior to amendment of Section 148. After the

amendment, in the light of the decision in the case of Ashish

Agarwal vs. Union of India reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 543,

the proceedings initiated under Section 148 of the Act prior to

amendment were held to be valid and to be treated as

proceedings under the amended Section 148A of the Act.

Consequently, the assessee sought for reasons for reopening

which were furnished to the assessee on 8th November, 2021.

The assessee submitted their reply to the said reasons for

reopening. Subsequently, it appears that the supplementary

reasons were given to the assessee for which the assessee had

also submitted their reply/objection. Further, the assessing

officer, while passing the order under Section 148A(d) of the

Act did not arrive at any adverse finding against the assessee

on the issues which were pointed out in the reasons for

reopening at the first instance, but proceeded to pass an order

on the issues which were raised as supplementary reasons.

The question would be whether the assumption of

jurisdiction by the assessing officer under Section 148A of the

Act was justified after having abandoned or not given any

adverse finding on the reasons for reopening initially

furnished to the assessee on 8th November, 2021 was in

accordance with law. This legal issue will be considered in

the writ petition after affidavits is filed by the revenue for

which direction has already been issued by the learned Single

Judge.

Thus, we are of the view that the appellant/assessee

has made out a prima facie case for grant of an interim order

till the disposal of the writ petition.

Accordingly, the appeals (APOT/223/2022 and

APOT/224/2022) are allowed and the orders passed by the

assessing officer under Section 148A(d) of the Act and the

consequential notice issued under Section 148 of the Act shall

remain stayed and shall abide by the orders that may be passed

in the writ petition.

Consequently, the connected applications for stay (IA

No.GA/1/2022) also stand disposed of.

(T.S. SIVAGNANAM, J.)

(HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA, J.)

S.Das/As.