Mortex India Private Limited v ACIT (Calcutta High Court)

In the case of Mortex India Private Limited v. ACITthe Calcutta High Court has stayed the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, till the final disposal of the writ petition. Mortex India Pvt. Ltd. filed a writ petition challenging the notice dated August 30, 2024, for assessment year 2018-19, issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer. The petitioner argued that the notice was issued in violation of the provisions laid down in Section 151A of the Income Tax Act and the scheme notified on March 29, 2022. Further, the petitioner challenged the approval granted under Section 151, stating that it was perverse and did not take into account the response of the petitioner to the notice issued under Section 148A(b).

The Court, after hearing both parties, recognized the question of jurisdiction raised by the applicant. The petitioner referred to the judgment of Girdhar Gopal Dalmia vs Union of Indiawhere the Court had suspended a similar notice under Section 148. In light of the prima facie case and this precedent, the Court decided to suspend further action with respect to the notice until the petition in in short be resolved. The respondents were given eight weeks to file their affidavit of opposition, with a four-week window for the applicant to subsequently respond. The Court took liberty to mention the matter after the exchange of affidavits was completed.

FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF THE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT

Challenging the issuance of notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) dated 30^th August 2024 for the assessment year 2018-19, the present writ petition has been filed on the ground that it was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer in contravention of the provisions contained in section 151A of the said Act read with the regime as referred to below, notified on 29^th March 2022.

2. The petitioner also questions the approval granted under Article 151 of the said law of 29^th August 2024 for the assessment year 2018-19 on the ground that the same is perverse and does not take into consideration the response given by the petitioner to the notice issued under section 148A(b) of the said Act.

3. Das De, learned counsel, appears on behalf of the respondents. She requests permission to use an affidavit of opposition.

4. Since the above application raises a question of jurisdiction, the same will be heard. That the affidavit of opposition to the present writ petition be filed within eight weeks after the annual vacation; the response, if applicable, will be filed within the following four weeks.

5. Taking into consideration the prima facie case as presented by the petitioner and the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court presided over by the Hon’ble Chief Justice in the case of Girdhar Gopal Dalmia v. Union of India & Ors., in MAT/1690/2023 the 25th^th September 2023, whereby the Hon’ble Division Bench, while examining the competence of the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, to issue an opinion under section 148 of the said Act, following publication of the draft vide Notification of the 29th^th March 2022and while accepting that the appeal had stayed the said notice, I am of the opinion that no further action should be taken by the respondents on the basis of the notice issued under section 148 of the said Act dated from 30^th August 2024 for assessment year 2018-19 till disposal of the writ petition.

6. Freedom to mention when the time limit for exchange of affidavits has expired.