Dinesh Kumar Goyal, HUF v. Income Tax OFFICER,(INVESTIGATION)-2, Kolkata, and Anr.

Calcutta HC16 Mar 2021WPO/102/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Calcutta allowed a writ petition where the petitioner challenged a notice u/s 133(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court held that since no inquiry was pending against the HUF, prior approval under the second proviso was mandatory, which was not obtained, leading to the quashing of the notice.

What did the court decide?

The impugned notice dated February 20, 2021 is quashed and set aside.

Dinesh Kumar Goyal, HUF Vs Income Tax… — Writ and Judicial Review | Calcutta HC (2021)

¶1

OD-1

¶2

WPO / 102 / 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE (VIA VIDEO CONFERENCE)

¶3

DINESH KUMAR GOYAL, HUF

¶4

Versus

¶5

INCOME TAX OFFICER, (INVESTIGATION)-2, KOLKATA, AND ANR.

¶6

BEFORE:

¶7

The Hon'ble JUSTICE SHEKHAR B.SARAF

¶8

Date : 16^th March, 2021

¶9

Appearance:

¶10

Mr.R.N.Dutt, Adv. Ms.Sutapa Roychoudhury, Adv.

¶11

Mr.P.K.Bhowmick, Adv. Mr.radhamohan Ray, Adv.

¶12

The Court : This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India wherein the writ petitioner is aggrieved by a notice under sub-Section 6 of Section 133 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 with reference to Assessment Years 2015-16 and 2016-17.

¶13

The case of the petitioner is that when no inquiry or proceedings under this Act are pending against the petitioner, proviso 2 of sub-Section 6 of Section 133 comes into play. Under the said proviso a prior approval is required from the

¶14

¶15

Principal Director or Director as the case may be or the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner.

¶16

The case of the petitioner is that such approval was never taken.

¶17

Mr. Bhowmick, counsel appearing on behalf of the Income Tax Department

¶18

has relied on a approval issued for making enquiry as per first proviso of Section 133 (6) for the Financial Year 2015-16 (A.Y. 2016-17).

¶19

I have heard counsel appearing for the parties and perused the materials on record.

¶20

I am of the view that as no proceedings are pending against the petitioner company, approval should have been taken under the second proviso under subSection 6 of Section 133 of the Income Tax, 1961 for both the Assessment Years.

¶21

Since the same has not been done, the impugned notice dated February 20, 2021 is quashed and set aside.

¶22

The Department shall be at liberty to proceed in future in accordance with law.

¶23

Since no affidavits have been filed in this matter, the allegations made in the writ petition are deemed not to have been admitted by the respondents.

¶24

The writ petition being WPO No. 102 of 2021 stands disposed of.

¶25

(SHEKHAR B.SARAF, J.)

¶26

D.Ghosh

Dinesh Kumar Goyal, HUF v. Income Tax OFFICER,(INVESTIGATION)-2, Kolkata, and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dinesh Kumar Goyal, HUF v. Income Tax OFFICER,(INVESTIGATION)-2, Kolkata, and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Suravi Pal Chowdhury Vs the State of West Bengal and Ors.

Ratan Kumar Manna Vs W.B. Central School Service Commission & Ors.

Sabita Saha Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Somenath Ray & Ors. Vs State of West Bengal & Ors.

Pricewaterhouse Coopers Private Limited Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, CIRCLE-1(1), Kolkata and Ors.

Lgw Industries Limited Vs Union of India and Ors.