Court quashes notice for non-compliance, directs payment of costs, allows issuance of fresh notice.

The court quashed the impugned notice and subsequent proceedings due to non-compliance with statutory formalities under sections 148 and 148A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner was directed to pay costs of Rs.5,000 to the Calcutta High Court Legal Services Committee for delay in filing the writ petition. The court allowed the respondent to issue a fresh notice in the future in accordance with the law.

---

---

Issues:
1. Impugned notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Compliance with statutory formalities under section 148A of the 1961 Act.
3. Date of issuance of the notice.
4. Validity of the impugned notice and subsequent proceedings.
5. Payment of costs and delay in filing the writ petition.

Analysis:

1. The petitioner challenged the impugned notice issued under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, contending that it was barred by limitation and that the respondent-income tax authority failed to observe the statutory formalities under section 148A of the Act as mandated by the Finance Act, 2021.

2. The respondent claimed that a final assessment order had been passed, and although the notice appeared to be signed on March 31, 2021, it was actually uploaded for communication on April 1, 2021. The court noted the requirement of compliance with section 148A before issuing any notice under section 148 of the amended Act.

3. Citing previous judgments, the court found that the impugned notice and subsequent proceedings were not sustainable in law due to non-compliance with the statutory formalities. The court referred to cases such as Bagaria Properties and Investment Private Limited v. Union of India and Monoj Jain v. Union of India to support its decision.

4. The court quashed the impugned notice and proceedings but clarified that the respondent-authority could issue a fresh notice in the future in accordance with the law. The petitioner was directed to pay costs of Rs.5,000 to the Calcutta High Court Legal Services Committee due to the delay in filing the writ petition without any explanation.

5. The costs were to be utilized for the benefit of children in a correctional home in West Bengal. The court disposed of the writ petition with these observations and scheduled a compliance hearing for a later date.

This detailed analysis covers the issues raised in the judgment, highlighting the key arguments, findings, and directives of the court.

---