TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>High Court of Calcutta quashes reopening proceedings under Income Tax Act, emphasizing fair hearing</h1> <h3>Girdhar Gopal Dalmia. Versus Union of India And Ors.</h3> Girdhar Gopal Dalmia. Versus Union of India And Ors. - [2023] 451 ITR 320 (Cal) Issues:Challenging order under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; Dismissal of writ petition by Single Bench; Appellant's appeal against order; Assessing Officer's discretion in fixing notice period; Opportunity of being heard to the assessee; Compliance with principles of natural justice; Remand of the matter back to the Assessing Officer; Fresh reply submission by the appellant; Non-speaking order by the assessing officer; Violation of directions issued by Division Bench; Justification for reopening the assessment; Lack of clarity in the information provided; Use of words 'potential' and 'probable'; Tax levied on actual income; Reopening proceedings based on assumptions and presumptions; Abuse of the process of law.Detailed Analysis:The High Court of Calcutta heard an intra Court appeal challenging an order under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The appellant had previously filed a writ petition which was dismissed by the Single Bench. The Division Bench, in an earlier judgment, emphasized the importance of providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity to be heard in compliance with natural justice principles. The Court remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration, directing the appellant to submit a fresh reply within two weeks. However, the assessing officer failed to comply with the directions and passed a non-speaking order, leading to a violation of the Court's directives and potential contempt of court proceedings.The Court scrutinized the justification for reopening the assessment, which was allegedly based on vague information from the Deputy Director of Income Tax. The report contained unclear references to potential financial transactions and lacked specific details necessary for the assessee to respond effectively. The Court highlighted the significance of taxing actual income rather than potential future advantages, citing relevant legal precedents. It concluded that the entire reopening process, from the issuance of the notice to the final order, constituted an abuse of the legal process due to the lack of independent assessment by the assessing officer and reliance on assumptions and presumptions.In light of these findings, the Court allowed the appeal, set aside the order passed in the writ petition, and quashed the entire reopening proceedings. The Registry was directed to communicate the judgment to the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax for necessary action. No costs were awarded in the matter, and urgent copies of the order were to be provided to the parties upon completion of legal formalities.This detailed analysis covers the issues involved in the legal judgment, including challenges to the order under Section 148A(d), compliance with natural justice principles, the assessing officer's actions, justification for reopening the assessment, and the Court's decision to quash the proceedings as an abuse of the legal process.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
