Authority: Calcutta High Court, Division Bench (Justice Smita Das De)
Order Date: 18 September 2026
Case Overview
- Parties: petitioner Jainco Transmission Limited (represented by advocates Mr. Avra Majumder, Ms. Alisha Das, Ms. Rupomita Ghosh, Ms. Maitreyee Naskar) versus the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle II (1), Kolkata and others (respondents, represented by Mr. Soumen Bhattacharjee and Mr. Rounak Seal).
- Petition: Writ Petition (WPA 15197 of 2024) challenging the order dated 16 April 2024 issued under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the notice under Section 148 for Assessment Year 2017‑18.
- Key Allegation: The petitioner contended that the sanction authority (CCIT Kolkata‑2) granted approval under Section 151 without considering the petitioner’s response to the notice under Section 148A(b), as the sanction order’s column No. 15 incorrectly recorded that no response was filed.
- Respondent’s Position: The respondent argued that the omission was a clerical/administrative oversight, especially when a response is filed manually, and that the sanction authority had nonetheless considered the response; therefore, the order should not be vitiated.
- Court’s Observations:
- The response to the notice under Section 148A(b) was indeed filed, corroborated by the order dated 16 April 2024.
- The sanction authority’s record that no response was filed appears mechanical; there is no evidence that the response was actually considered.
- The sanction authority, while recommending issuance of notice under Section 148, relied solely on the assessing officer’s proposal and material on record, without reflecting consideration of the petitioner’s response.
- Consequently, the approval under Section 151 was issued in a mechanical manner, rendering the order under Section 148A(d) vitiated.
- Legal Reasoning: A sanction granted without due application of mind, i.e., without proper consideration of the assessee’s reply, cannot stand. The mechanical nature of the sanction invalidates the subsequent notice and assessment order.
Final Outcome
- The order dated 16 April 2024 under Section 148A(d) is set aside.
- The notice issued under Section 148 for AY 2017‑18 is also set aside.
- The respondents retain the right to initiate fresh proceedings by issuing a new notice, which must consider the petitioner’s response in accordance with law.
- For limitation purposes, the one‑month period for passing an order under Section 148A(d) commences when the notice is issued, provided the notice is issued within four months from the date of the original notice.
- No order as to costs.
- Parties may obtain an urgent photostat certified copy of the order upon compliance with requisite formalities.
Topics: Tax Litigation, Income Tax Assessment