Pradip Kumar Saha v. Union of India & ors

Case snapshot

Sections / provisions: 144 read with 144B

Questions before the Court / Tribunal

• Completion of Faceless Assessment before crossing its time lime is not sustainable and it is in Violation of Principles of Natural
• Which factual, statutory and procedural conditions controlled the requested relief?
• How did the forum apply the governing provisions to the evidence and procedural history recorded in this case?

Material facts and procedural background

Pradip Kumar Saha vs. Union of India & ors. For the Appellants : Mr. Himangshu Kr. Ray For the Respondents : Mr. Samarjit Roy Chowdhury Mr. Arunava Ganguly Heard on : 17.12.2021 Judgment on : 17.12.2021. T.S. Sivagnanam J.: This appeal has been filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 11.11.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPA 16497/2021 challenging the faceless assessment proceedings on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice. The said writ petition is pending before the learned Single Judge but the prayer for

interim relief was not granted and direction was given to the respondents to file affidavit-in-opposition. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant is before this Court. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel on either side submitted that the main writ petition itself can be disposed of as the issue lies in a narrow canvass. In the light of the said submission, we take up the matter for consideration of the prayer sought for in the writ petition. The appellant writ petitioner in the said writ petition has sought for cancellation of the order dated 08.09.2021 and the notice of demand dated 08.09.2021 as also the order imposing penalty by notice dated 08.09.2021. The facts are that on 11.09.2021 the appellant writ petitioner received a notice dated 06.09.2021 from the second respondent. The said notice was sent from the Office of the third respondent through speed post. In the said notice dated 06.09.2021, the second respondent appears to have stated that National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC) has not received any response in the case of Mr. Pradip Kumar Saha, the appellant herein in respect of certain notices sent. The appellant was not granted opportunity of filing reply to the draft assessment order and seven days time was granted. The case in hand is that the appellant came to know of the notice for the first time on 11.09.2021 at 14.19 hours and received the same by speed post but the appellant’s accountant entered the online portal to submit reply to the show cause notice dated 23.08.2021 and

other notices which were enclosed and by that time the appellant found that the second respondent had passed the assessment order dated 08.09.2021 and raised demand by imposing penalty. The facts appeared to be not in dispute that the Department may contend that earlier notices were issued. The fact remains that having granted a final opportunity of fixing a time limit, the time limit should commence to run from the date of the receipt of the notice and if that be so, the date should be computed from 11.09.2021 and it will expire on 17.09.2021. Therefore, completing the assessment well before the said time is not sustainable and it is in violation of principles of natural justice. The decision in the case of Renew Power (P) Ltd. vs. National EAssessment Centre Delhi reported in [2021] 128 taxman.com 263 (Delhi) would also support the case of the appellant. Thus, for the above reasons, the instant appeal is allowed and the connected application is disposed of. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed and the assessment order dated 08.09.2021 and the notice of the demand dated 08.09.2021 as well as the penalty notice dated 08.09.2021 are quashed and the matter is remanded to the respondents for granting fresh opportunity to the appellant for filing reply/objection to the draft assessment notice and, thereafter, to take a decision on the merit. (T. S. Sivagnanam, J.)

Appellant / petitioner / assessee submissions

The judgment does not separately label this side’s submissions in an independently extractable passage. No contention is inferred; read the full record.

Revenue / respondent submissions

The judgment does not separately label the respondent’s submissions in an independently extractable passage. No contention is inferred; read the full record.

Court / Tribunal analysis and reasoning

The concise order integrates its reasoning with the operative directions. The complete packaged record controls.

Operative decision and relief

The operative relief must be read from the final paragraphs of the complete packaged judgment.

Ratio and legal principle

The narrow proposition associated with Pradip Kumar Saha v. Union of India & ors concerns completion of faceless assessment before crossing its time lime is not sustainable and it is in violation of principles of natural The proposition cannot be separated from the judgment’s facts, the governing statutory version, the forum’s jurisdiction, and the exact relief recorded in MAT 1245 of 2021.

For working-paper purposes, the decision should be cited only after matching the material facts and reading the passages under the judgment-grounded record above. The editorial outcome label “Quashed / set aside” is a navigation aid; it does not replace the operative order or explain every issue in a multi-issue case.

Why this judgment matters

This decision is relevant when a file raises the same central question identified in the source headnote: Completion of Faceless Assessment before crossing its time lime is not sustainable and it is in Violation of Principles of Natural Its practical value lies in the way the Calcutta High Court connected the governing provisions—144 read with 144B—to the procedural posture and evidence before it.

The authority level is High Court. That affects persuasive or binding weight, but authority level alone is never enough. Territorial jurisdiction, statutory period, the identity of the challenged order, and later appellate treatment must all be checked before the case is used in advice, a submission, or litigation strategy.

Practitioner action points

• Begin with the complete judgment and mark the paragraphs supporting the exact proposition relied upon.
• Match the statutory version of 144 read with 144B and the decision date 2021-09-08; do not assume the current text is identical.
• Compare the notice, assessment, appeal or other procedural sequence with the chronology recorded in this case.
• Verify the stated later-history status and any review, appeal, SLP, curative or rectification proceedings before citation.
• Record why the client’s evidence is materially similar, and also record any fact capable of distinguishing the result.

Does this case match your facts?

Detailed reliance and distinction analysis

Identity check. Confirm that the cited cause title is Pradip Kumar Saha v. Union of India & ors, the proceeding is MAT 1245 of 2021, and the decision is dated 2021-09-08. These fields are taken from the judgment record and should appear exactly in the citation note.

Bench check. The judgment identifies the coram as The Hon’ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam And The Hon’ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya. A later order by another bench, a larger bench, or a higher forum may alter the weight or interpretation of the proposition.

Provision check. The source associates the dispute with 144 read with 144B. The practitioner should place the historical statutory text next to the current text and identify every amendment, proviso, explanation, rule or notification that could change the analysis.

Fact check. The source issue is not a free-standing abstract rule. It arises from the concrete record summarized above. A reliable application note should list the common facts, the different facts, and whether each difference affects jurisdiction, admissibility, limitation, burden, computation or relief.

Remedy check. The recorded result is Quashed / set aside. Where a matter is remanded, set aside, partly allowed, or disposed with directions, the exact operative language is more important than a binary winner/loser label.

History check. The current closure state is REVIEW_APPEAL_SLP_CHECK_PENDING. If that state is pending, the page does not assert that no later case exists. It means the check remains open and must be completed at the point of professional reliance.

Section / provision impact

• 144 read with 144B — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.

Case network

• OERLIKON BALZERS COATING INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED VS. UNION OF INDIA & ANR — Court / Tribunal to be verified · Quashed / set aside
• UCB India Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT — Supreme Court of India · Quashed / set aside
• SPL Labs India Pvt ltd Vs ITO,Circle 6 Bangalore — Supreme Court of India · Quashed / set aside
• Lokmangal Nagri Sahakari Path Sanstha Maryadit Vs PCIT -4 Pune — ITAT Pune · Quashed / set aside

Related Finin2min resources

• Case Law Hub
• Search all 592 judgments
• Explore Appeals, Revision, Rectification & Procedure

Full judgment and source control

Read / download packaged judgment record

Source class: OFFICIAL_PRIMARY_SEARCH_PENDING · Repository status: PUBLISH_READY