Rajadhiraj Commotrade Pvt. Ltd. v. The Income-tax Officer, Ward-1(4), Kolkata
[Citation -2020-LL-0921-14]

Citation 2020-LL-0921-14
Appellant Name Rajadhiraj Commotrade Pvt. Ltd.
Respondent Name The Income-tax Officer, Ward-1(4), Kolkata
Court HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Relevant Act Income-tax
Date of Order 21/09/2020
Judgment View Judgment
Keyword Tags statutory appeal • non-filing of return
Bot Summary: For Respondent The Court : The writ petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 19th December, 2019 issued by the Assessing Officer(IV), Aayakar Bhawan, Kolkata. The principal grievance is that the writ petitioner has been charged with non- 2 filing of Returns for A.Y. 2012-13. The petitioner also submits that, contrary to the views of the assessing officer they have already submitted returns for the assessment year 2012-13. Per contra, counsel for the authorities submits that it is the petitioners themselves that have been using this allegedly unknown PAN number along with another PAN under the same identity and the order of the assessing authority was justified in law and in fact. Since serious allegations have been made by the petitioner against the assessing officer that border on misconduct, this Court is of the view that the matter should be dealt with suitably by the statutory appellate authority under Section 246 of the Income Tax Act. Leave is therefore granted to the petitioner to file a statutory appeal under Section 246, within a period of 30(thirty) days from date. The appellate authority, if necessary, shall take all 3 steps to investigate into the contentions on behalf of the assessing officer that two PAN numbers are being used by the same petitioner illegally and dues to the extent of Rs.9 Crore have accumulated against them.


WPO No. 266 of 2020 IA:GA 1/2020 (Old No.GA/1215/2020) GA/2/2020 (Old No.GA/1216/2020) IN HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE M/S. RAJADHIRAJ COMMOTRADE PVT. LTD. Versus INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(4), KOLKATA BEFORE: Hon'ble JUSTICE RAJASEKHAR MANTHA Date : 21st September, 2020 (Via Video Conference) Ms. Kavita Jha, Adv. Mr. Ganesh N. Jajodia, Adv. Mr. Rohit Banerjee, Adv. Ms. Satabdi Dutta, Adv. for Petitioner Mr. S.N. Dutta, Adv. Mr. Asoke Bhaumik, Adv. for Respondent Court : writ petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 19th December, 2019 issued by Assessing Officer(IV), Aayakar Bhawan, Kolkata. principal grievance is that writ petitioner has been charged with non- 2 filing of Returns for A.Y. 2012-13. It is also alleged against petitioner that no Return has been filed in respect of PAN AADCR 9208B. petitioner contends that they have nothing to do with this PAN number. petitioner also submits that postal address of alleged assessee mentioned in impugned order is not known to them. petitioner also submits that, contrary to views of assessing officer they have already submitted returns for assessment year 2012-13. Per contra, counsel for authorities submits that it is petitioners themselves that have been using this allegedly unknown PAN number along with another PAN under same identity and order of assessing authority was justified in law and in fact. There are other issues also raised by petitioner that need not be gone into at this stage by this Court. Since serious allegations have been made by petitioner against assessing officer that border on misconduct, this Court is of view that matter should be dealt with suitably by statutory appellate authority under Section 246 of Income Tax Act. Leave is therefore granted to petitioner to file statutory appeal under Section 246, within period of 30(thirty) days from date. impugned order shall remain stayed for period of 30(thirty) days from date. appeal shall be accepted in physical form by appellate authority and not by electronic means. appellate authority, if necessary, shall take all 3 steps to investigate into contentions on behalf of assessing officer that two PAN numbers are being used by same petitioner illegally and dues to extent of Rs.9 Crore have accumulated against them. All issues are kept open to be agitated. In view of above, all GA applications are disposed of. (RAJASEKHAR MANTHA, J.) SN/SB. AR(CR) Rajadhiraj Commotrade Pvt. Ltd. v. Income-tax Officer, Ward-1(4), Kolkata
Report Error