Single Judge Refused Interim Relief Due to Dept.’s Delay in Filing Affidavit: Calcutta HC Division Bench Grants 3-Week Extension in Income Tax Case [Read Order]

A Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court recently granted a three-week extension to the Income Tax Department for filing its affidavit in opposition in an ongoing writ petition after the single-bench observed that the matter could not be adjudicated unless the department filed their affidavit.

The present case was instituted by Unisource Hydro Carbon Services Private Limited, challenging the refusal of interim relief by the Single Bench in proceedings related to an order under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 pertaining to the assessment year 2018-19.

The writ petitioners had initially approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, assailing an assessment order dated 30th August 2024 issued under Section 148A(d) citing numerous grounds.

Comprehensive Guide of Law and Procedure for Filing of Income Tax Appeals, Click Here

The matter was initially heard by the Single Bench, which upon admitting the petition observed that the case could not be decided without the parties having filed their affidavits and accordingly directed all parties to complete their pleadings within two weeks from 13th June 2025. However, the Department failed to file its affidavit in opposition within the stipulated timeframe.

The appellant noted that the writ petition itself would become infructuous if interim orders are not passed since the reassessment proceedings would be commenced and concluded in such an instance and thus preferred this appeal before the Division Bench.

The appellants, represented by Himangshu Kumar Roy, Shiwani Shaw, Sushant Bagaria, Animitra Roy, Gaurav Chakraborty, Anish Mondal and Piyas Chowdhury argued the urgency of interim relief referring to alleged violation of principles of natural justice, which has to be gone into after the opposite files their affidavit.

Meanwhile, Prithu Dudhoria appeared for the respondent Department.

Comprehensive Guide of Law and Procedure for Filing of Income Tax Appeals, Click Here

The Division Bench of Chief Justice T.S. Sivagnanam and Justice Bivas Pattanayak noted that the absence of a statutory remedy against orders under Section 148A(d) necessitates recourse to the writ jurisdiction through the present petition.

The Bench further observed that the reopening of assessments must be approached with utmost care, and in the present case, the question of whether there was a violation of natural justice could only be determined after the Department filed its affidavit.

Consequently, the Court stayed all further proceedings pursuant to the Section 148A(d) order and the consequential notice under Section 148 until the final disposal of the writ petition before the single-bench.

Thus, the Calcutta High Court granted the Department an additional three weeks to file its affidavit, with liberty to the petitioners to file a reply within two weeks thereafter.

The Court also clarified that the parties may approach the Single Bench for inclusion of the matter to conclude hearing.

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates