[Cites 7, Cited by 0]
Calcutta High Court
Karamjyoti Sales Private Limited vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax on 16 January, 2026
OD-12
ORDER SHEET
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION
ORIGINAL SIDE
WPO/771/2025
KARAMJYOTI SALES PRIVATE LIMITED
VERSUS
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2),
KOLKATA AND ORS.
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE OM NARAYAN RAI
Date: 16th January, 2026.
Appearance:
Mr. J.P. Khaitan, Sr. Adv.
Ms. Swapna Das, Adv.
Mr. Sidhatra Das, Adv.
For the petitioner.
Ms. Sanjukta Gupta, Adv.
Ms. SukanyaDutta, Adv.
For the Income Tax Department.
The Court:- This writ petition has been filed assailing an order dated
August 31, 2024 passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961
and the consequential notice under Section 148 of the said Act, 1961 for the
Assessment Year 2017-18 issued on the same date.
Mr. Khaitan, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner,
submits that the reassessment proceeding could not have been initiated
inasmuch as the same is barred by limitation.
Inviting the attention of this Court to an assessment order dated March
31, 2022 passed under Section 153A of the said Act, 1961, it is submitted by
Mr. Khaitan that the same marks the conclusion of an assessment proceeding
2
initiated pursuant to search and seizure operation conducted under Section
132 of the said Act, 1961. The said order dated March 31, 2022 was carried in
appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The Commissioner of
Income Tax (Appeals) allowed the petitioner's appeal by an order dated August
18, 2023 by observing that the addition made by the Assessing Officer under
Section 68 of the said Act of 1961 to the tune of Rs. 81, 10,70,620/- cannot be
sustained inasmuch as no incriminating material was found during the search
operation.
It is submitted that upon such order being passed, the revenue
authorities have sought to reopen the proceedings for assessment of the
petitioner's income for the Assessment Year 2017-18 by resorting the provision
under Section 147 of the said Act, 1961, on the basis of an observation made
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Principal Commissioner of
Income Tax -Versus- Abhisar Buildwell P. Ltd reported at [2023] 454 ITR
212 (SC).
Mr. Khaitan submits that the said observation could not have
resuscitated a dead proceeding. Relying on the provision of Section 149 of the
said Act, 1961 (as the same stood at the relevant point of time when the
assessment proceedings were reopened), Mr. Khaitan submits that the case of
the petitioner falls under the provisions of Section 149[1] [b] of the said Act,
1961 and that being so, time for reopening the assessment stood closed with
the end of March 31, 2024 in so far as the assessment of the petitioner's
income for the Assessment Year 2017-18 is concerned.
It is further submitted that since the proceeding itself is time barred,
3
there is no use of participating in such proceedings and the petitioner should
not be burdened with participation in a proceeding which is destined to fail.
In support of his submission that time barred proceedings could not
have been brought back to life on the basis of the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Abhisar Buildwell P. Ltd(supra), Mr. Khaitan
relies on the following judgments:-
1. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax -Versus- U.K. Paints
(Overseas) Ltd., reported at [2023] 454 ITR 441(SC).
2. ARN Infrastructures India Ltd. -Versus- Assistant Commissioner
of Income-Tax And Others, reported at [2024] 469 ITR 333
(Delhi).
3. Sanjay Singhal -Versus- Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax,
reported at [2024] 169 taxmann.com 622 (Delhi).
It is submitted that a meaningful reading of the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Abhisar Buildwell P. Ltd (supra) would lead
one to reasonably conclude that proceeding under Section 147 of the said Act
of 1961 was left open for the revenue authorities only in cases where the same
could be legally pursued. If the proceedings could not be pursued in terms of
the provisions by reason of the same being barred by limitation or by a reason
of any other statutory bar, revenue could not have resorted to the same on the
strength of the said judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
He further relies on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Union of India And Others -Versus- Rajeev Bansal reported [2024]
469 ITR 46 (SC) and submits that the benefit of "TOLA" would also not be
4
available to the revenue in the case at hand.
Learned Advocate appearing for the respondent revenue authorities
submits that benefit of "TOLA" would be available to the respondent in the case
at hand and that the revenue authorities had rightly initiated the reassessment
proceedings. She, however, seeks some time to take appropriate instructions
and make further submissions in support of the revenue's contentions.
As prayed for, list this matter once again on January 27, 2026.
(OM NARAYAN RAI, J.)
Sb/snn.
