Calcutta High Court
Brahmani Infracon Pvt Ltd vs Union Of India And Ors on 26 March, 2025
Author: T.S Sivagnanam
Bench: T.S Sivagnanam
1
od 8
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
ORIGINAL SIDE
APOT/321/2024
IA NO: GA/2/2024
BRAHMANI INFRACON PVT LTD.
VS
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS
BEFORE :
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE T.S SIVAGNANAM
-A N D-
HON'BLE JUSTICE CHAITALI CHATTERJEE (DAS)
DATE : 26th March, 2025
Appearance :
Ms. Sutapa Roy Chowdhury, Sr. Adv.
Ms. Aratrika Roy, Adv.
...for appellant.
Mr. Vipul Kundulia, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Amit Sharma, Adv.
...for respondents.
The Court:- Heard learned advocates on either side.
In terms of the direction issued on 27.11.2024 the cost has been paid.
Therefore, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned.
The writ petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the learned single Bench
dismissing the writ petition which was filed challenging the order passed under
section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The first ground which is canvassed by the learned senior advocate for the
appellant is by placing reliance on the decision of the High Court of Bombay in
Hexaware Technologies Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 15(1)(2)
reported in (2024) 162 taxmann.com 225 (Bombay) and the decision of the High Court
of Telangana in Kankanala Ravindra Reddy vs. Income Tax Officer & Ors. in WP
No.25903 of 2022. The facts of these two decisions were considered by this Court in
MAT/1350/2024 and the Court took into consideration the latest decision of the High
Court at Delhi in T.K.S. Builders (P) Ltd. vs. Income-tax Officer, (2024) 167 taxmann.com
2
759 (Delhi) and the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed. The operative portion
of the judgment reads as follows :
"On careful reading of the entire decision we are of the prima facie view
that the decision in T.K.S. Builders (P) Ltd. (supra) lays down the correct principle
while holding that the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer is not completely
denuded after coming into force of the Faceless Reassessment Scheme, 2022. In
the said matter, namely, T.K.S. Builders (P) Ltd. (supra) the department was
directed to file an additional affidavit where they had explained the working and
implementation of the risk management strategy as well as the identification of
the cases on a random basis. After taking note of the said affidavit and also
various statutory provisions, more particularly, section 144B of the Income Tax
Act, the Hon'ble Court has observed that the principle judgment which most of the
High Court are chosen to follow is Hexaware Technologies Ltd. (supra). After
extensively dealing with the said decision the court took note of the decision of
the High Court of Guahati in Ram Narayan Sah vs. Union of India reported in
[2024] 163 taxmann.com 478 which has also been relied upon by the learned
advocate appearing for the appellants before us and it was pointed out that the
comprehensive material presented on the record by the department has afforded
a holistic understanding of the nuanced aspects of the Faceless Assessment
Scheme enabling the court to appreciate its intent and purpose in greater depth. It
is further held that unlike prior cases where certain High Courts, including in
Hexaware Technologies Ltd. (supra) were not provided with the full spectrum of
relevant notification and contextual information, the extensive documentation in
the said matter has helped to clarify ambiguities in both law and fact. Further,
the court observed that this record has allowed for a deeper analysis, addressing
key points left unexamined in previous judgment and has illuminated the
legislative and procedural intention behind the Faceless Assessment Scheme,
particularly, the concurrent jurisdiction between the jurisdictional Assessment
Officer and Faceless Assessment Officer. Further, while in agreeing with the
decision rendered in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. (supra), more particularly, what
was expressed in paragraph 36 of the said judgment, it was pointed out that the
process of reassessment is divided into two stages and when viewed in that light
it manifests that it strikes a just balance between obligation of the jurisdictional
Assessing Officer to scrutinise information and conduct of assessment itself
through a faceless allocation. Further, it was held that the distribution of
information between the jurisdictional Assessment Officer and Faceless
3
Assessment Officer is supplementary and concurrent as contemplated under
various schemes and statutory provisions. This balanced distribution underscores
the legislative intent to create a seamless integration and traditional with a
faceless assessment mechanism within a unified statutory framework.
Accordingly, it is held that the court is unable to countenance a situation
where the jurisdictional Assessment Officer stands completely deprived of the
jurisdiction to evaluate data and material that may be placed in its hands. With
the elaborate reasoning, all the writ petitions were dismissed.
Therefore, we are of the prima facie view that the law laid down in T.K.S.
Builders (P) Ltd. (supra) lays down the correct proposition of law and any other
conclusion that may be arrived at will set at naught the very purpose of the
scheme of reassessment under the provisions of the Income Tax Act. Thus, we are
of the view that the appellants have not made any prima facie case for grant of
any interim order. Accordingly, the prayer for stay stands rejected and the
application for stay stands dismissed.
As the learned advocate appearing for the appellants submitted that the
appeals arising out of various decisions of the High Courts including Hexaware
Technologies Ltd. (supra) are pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, we keep
this appeal pending. It is made clear that it will be open to the appellants to
canvass other points when the appeal is taken up for hearing.
Liberty to mention the appeal."
Therefore, the first contention raised by the learned senior advocate appearing
for the appellant stands rejected. This leaves us with the other contention which
relates to whether there has been violation of principles of natural justice and whether
there was application of mind by the Commissioner of Income Tax while granting
approval under section 159 of the Act wherein reference has been made to section
149(1)(b) of the Act which, according to the learned senior advocate for the appellant,
is not applicable to the facts of the case. Further, it is submitted that in response to
the notice issued under section 148A(b) of the Act the appellant/assessee submitted
an interim reply and sought for various documents. The fact that the appellant sought
for documents is not denied by the authority as the same has been noted in the order
passed under section 148A(d) dated 1.5.2023. However, the copy was never served on
4
the assessee before the order was passed under section 148A(d) of the Act. It is
submitted that in the said order which was impugned in the writ petition it has been
stated that the letter was issued to the assessee on 22.4.2023 by enclosing
attachment and requesting to furnish the assessee's reply by 27.4.2023. The said
document was sent to the assessee's e-mail id only on 8.5.2023. In this regard the
relevant screen-shot of the department's portal has also been referred to.
The learned senior advocate for the department submitted that the ground
which is now canvassed before this Court was not canvassed in the writ petition. It is
incorrect to state that such a ground was not canvassed but it should be right to state
that it was not canvassed in the present form since in the writ petition the assessee
has specifically stated that the documents sought for by the assessee were not
provided. Therefore, on these two grounds alone we are inclined to entertain this
appeal and the direction issued to the assessing officer to give specific written
instruction in this regard namely, as to whether the document given to the assessee as
attachments was sent for the first time only on 8.5.2023 and with regard to the
applicability of section 149(1)(b) which was relied on by the Commissioner of Income
Tax while granting approval under section151 of the Act. Let such affidavit be filed on
the next date of hearing. Till the matter is heard and disposed of, further proceedings
pursuant to the notice issued under section 142(1) dated 23.8.2024 shall remain
stayed.
List the matter on 4th April, 2025.
.
(T.S. SIVAGNANAM)
CHIEF JUSTICE
(CHAITALI CHATTERJEE (DAS), J.)
pkd/S.Das.
[ad_1]
Source link