{"id":59613,"date":"2026-04-17T12:24:34","date_gmt":"2026-04-17T06:54:34","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/mukul-mahanta-v-uoi-2025-306-taxman-38-calhc\/"},"modified":"2026-04-17T12:24:34","modified_gmt":"2026-04-17T06:54:34","slug":"mukul-mahanta-v-uoi-2025-306-taxman-38-calhc","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/mukul-mahanta-v-uoi-2025-306-taxman-38-calhc\/","title":{"rendered":"Mukul Mahanta v. UOI [2025] 306 Taxman 38 (Cal)(HC)"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>The assessee challenged the legality and validity of the re-assessment proceedings before the Hon\u2019ble Calcutta HC, arguing that the proceedings are vitiated since the assessee was granted only three days to reply to the show cause notice instead of seven days as provided in the CBDT\u2019s standard operating procedure. In reply, the Department argued that the assessee was granted sufficient opportunities throughout the proceedings by way of issuance of notices under section 148A(b) of the Act, 148 of the Act and 142(1) of the Act, none of which was relied to by the assessee. The Department also relied on the decision in case of PCIT v. P L Goenka HUF [(2025) 174 taxmann.com 588 (Cal) HC)] wherein it was held that mere breach of a SOP would not render the assessment invalid. Further, the Department also placed reliance on the decision in case of State of U.P. v. Sudhir Kumar Singh [(2021) 19 SCC 706 (Supreme Court)], wherein it was held that an order cannot be said to be invalid solely on account of breach of natural justice and if there is no prejudice caused to the assessee, it cannot be said that natural justice has been denied. Accordingly, it was argued by the Department that as the assessee had not submitted replies to any of the earlier notices, no prejudice was caused. Dismissing the assessee\u2019s writ, the Hon\u2019ble Calcutta High Court\u00a0 observed that the assessee had sufficient opportunities to respond to the earlier notices issued and had remedies available under the law to challenge the reassessment order and therefore, no prejudice was caused to it. However, the Hon\u2019ble High Court\u00a0 gave the liberty to the assessee to challenge the reassessment order before the appropriate appellate forum.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>S. 148A: Reassessment-Conducting inquiry, providing opportunity before issue of notice-Principle of natural justice-Standard Operating Procedure (SOP)-Time allowed for reply to notice under section 148A(b) was 4 days instead of 7 days as per the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) issued by the CBDT-No prejudice caused to the assessee merely because 4 days were provided instead of 7 days as suggested in SOP-Writ petition dismissed. [S. 148, 148A(b) 148A(d), Art. 226]  <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-59613","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-income-tax-act"],"acf":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p9S2Rw-fvv","jetpack-related-posts":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/59613","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=59613"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/59613\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":59614,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/59613\/revisions\/59614"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=59613"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=59613"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=59613"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}