Mortex India Private Limited vs ACIT (Calcutta High Court)

In case Mortex India Private Limited Vs. ACITThe Calcutta High Court stayed the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 pending final disposal of the writ petition. Mortex India Pvt. Ltd. submitted the request to contest the opinion dated August 30, 2024, for the assessment year 2018-19, issued by the competent authorizing officer. The petitioner contended that the notification was issued in violation of the provisions under Section 151A of the Income Tax Act and the scheme notified on March 29, 2022. The petitioner further challenged the approval granted under Section 151 stating that it was perverse and did not considered the petitioner’s reply to the notice under Section 148A(b).

The Court, after hearing both sides, took cognizance of the issue of competence raised by the petitioner. The petitioner referred to the decision of Girdhar Gopal Dalmia Vs. Union of Indiawhere the Court has stayed a similar notice under Section 148. In the light of the prima facie case and this precedent, the Court has decided to stay any further action on the notice pending disposal of the writ petition. The respondents were given eight weeks to file their affidavit in opposition, with a period of four weeks for the petitioner to respond thereafter. The court allowed the liberty to mention the matter once the exchange of affidavits is concluded.

FULL TEXT OF JUDGMENT/ORDER OF CALCUTTA HIGH COURT

Challenging the issuance of a 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 summons was filed on the grounds that it was issued by the jurisdictional assessment officer in violation of the provisions contained in section 151A of the said Law, read with the scheme as mentioned below, notified at 29^th March 2022.

2. The petitioner also questions the approval granted under section 151 of the said Act of 29.^th August 2024 for the assessment year 2018-19 on the ground that the same is perverse and does not consider the reply 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 prays for permission to use the statement in opposition.

4. Since the above writ petition raises an issue of jurisdiction, the same shall be tried. To submit the affidavit in opposition to this application for registration within eight weeks of the annual vacation; the reply, if any, to be filed within four weeks thereafter.

5. Taking into account the prima facie case prepared by the petitioner and the decision of the Divisional Chamber of this Court chaired by Mr. In case Girdhar Gopal Dalmia Vs. Union of India & Ors., in MAT/1690/2023 on the 25th^th September 2023, whereby the Hon’ble Division, while considering the power of the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer to issue a notice under section 148 of the said Act, in consequence of the publication of the Scheme vide Notification of 29^th March 2022and though I admit that the appeal stayed the said notice, I am of opinion that the defendants should not take further action on the notice issued under section 148 of the said Act of 30.^th August 2024 for the assessment year 2018-19 until the date of service of the summons.

6. Freedom to state at the expiration of the period of exchange of affidavits.