- Home
- News
- Articles+
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
- News
- Articles
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
Calcutta High Court rules against re-assessment under the IT Act
Calcutta High Court rules against re-assessment under the IT Act
It held that the assessing officer could initiate fresh proceedings in accordance with the law
The Calcutta High Court has held that the re-assessment passed under the Income Tax Act, 1961 without the application of mind was not sustainable under the law.
The petitioner, Realization Stock & Equity Private Limited had challenged the impugned notice of March 2021 under the IT Act relating to the Assessment Year 2017-18 and the subsequent notice of January 2022. It contended that those were issued with non-application of mind and hence, not sustainable in law.
Justice Mohammad Nizamuddin observed that one of the reasons for the re-opening of the assessment was that no regular assessment of the IT Act was made. This was totally incorrect and contrary to the respondent's own record where it appeared that the regular assessment of the writ petition was passed in December 2019.
Thus, quashing the order, the court observed, "The court, in the exercise of the Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction under the Constitution of India, is very reluctant to interfere with the sufficiency of the findings and reasoning of the recorded reason for the purpose of reopening of any assessment. But, since it is a case of patent non-application of mind by the assessing officer, all subsequent proceedings are quashed."
However, it added, "It will not prevent the assessing officer concerned from initiating any fresh proceedings in accordance with the law."