Item No.24 09.09.2026 Court. No. 9 (Saswata) CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN THE CIRCUIT BENCH AT JALPAIGURI APPELLATE JURISDICTION WPA 1962 of 2026 Rahemul Khandakar Vs. Union of India & Ors. Mr. Satayjit Paul Mr. Saptarshi Banik Mr. Rounak Ghosh …For the petitioner Mr. Sudipto Kumar Mazumdar, Ld. DSGI Mr. Saptak Sarkar …For the Income Tax Department Ms. Esha Acharya …For the State 1. The matter pertains to a challenge to an order under Section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “said Act”) read with Section 144B of the said Act, dated 19th February 2026 for the assessment year 2017-18, inter alia, on the ground that though this Court by order dated 11th February 2026 had directed the Assessing Officer not to take any steps initiated by the second adjourned notice for a period of 4 months, the Assessing Officer / National Faceless Assessing Centre (NFAC) by overlooking such direction, had proceeded to pass the assessment order. 2. When this matter was taken up on 3rd September 2026, this Court was of the prima facie view that the order impugned was passed on the teeth of an order of 2 injunction passed by this Court. Since, the Learned Deputy Solicitor General of India had prayed for an accommodation, the matter was adjourned. 3. Today, Mr. Mazumder, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India appearing for the Income Tax authorities would submit that he has nothing to add except the fact that since the petitioner did not file any response, the authority had proceeded. 4. Having heard the learned advocate appearing for the respective parties I find that in the previous writ petition, the writ petitioner prayed for a mandamus for the assessment proceeding to be kept in abeyance till disposal of all criminal cases pending against him. A coordinate Bench of this Court, however, did not adhere to the prayer made by the petitioner in its entirety. 5. Records reveal that the writ petition was disposed of by the co0rdinate Bench by order dated 11th February 2026 by, inter alia, observing as follows:- “1. In the writ petition, the petitioner prays for a mandamus for the assessment proceedings to be kept in abeyance till the disposal of all the criminal cases pending against him. Further prayer is for an order restraining the authorities from proceeding further in terms of the notice issued under Section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act dated July 25, 2025 by the Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department, under Faceless Assessment scheme, till the disposal of the all the criminal cases. 3 2. According to the system generated report of the department, it was found that the assessee, i.e., the petitioner, has deposited Rs.22,11,000/- in the bank account held with the United Bank of India. Notice under Section 142(1) of the said Act was issued and the petitioner was required to file true and correct returns of the income tax assessment for the year 2017-2018. The petitioner failed to file such return and the Assessing Officer proceeded to gather additional evidence from the UBI to complete the assessment. The bank manager was asked to furnish the account statement and all other accounts maintained by the petitioner from April 2016 to March, 2017. The bank provided the requisite statements, revealing that the petitioner had transactions in separate accounts amounting to Rs.3 crores at the relevant time. The Assessing Officer had given an opportunity to the petitioner to provide an explanation regarding those deposits and also to show- cause as to why the proceedings should not be concluded as per law. The petitioner did not appear before the Assessing Officer and the proceedings were concluded. It was found that the petitioner’s deposits contained unexplained investment of more than Rs.3 crores. The petitioner preferred an appeal. The petitioner failed to produce any evidence substantiating the claim that the amount that was deposited upon the petitioner’s income from his business activities. The appellate tribunal found that the petitioner was not heard and justice would be met if the order of the Assessing Officer was set aside and the 4 matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh hearing. Subsequently, another notice was issued under Section 142(1) of the said Act upon remand of the matter. The petitioner’s case is that most of his papers and business related documents have been seized by the investigating agency and matters are pending before the CBI Court, Siliguri as also before the Cooch Behar Court. The petitioner is unable to procure the relevant documents in support of his source of income in order to justify the deposits made in the bank. 3. It appears that the authorities found unexplained bank deposit by the petitioner for more than Rs.3 crores and the income tax authorities have questioned the source of such income. They have a right to do so. 4. The petitioner’s contention is that the documents which he wishes to rely upon, have been seized by the investigating agency and the matters are pending before the court. 5. However, this Court does not find that the petitioner has indicated exactly what documents he wishes to rely upon. An omnibus prayer is being made for stay of the proceeding, which cannot be permitted. 6. Under such circumstances, in order to afford an opportunity to the petitioner to prepare his case, the Assessing Officer is directed not to take any steps and/or keep the proceeding initiated by the second adjourned notice for a period of four months. If the petitioner is unable to file the reply to the 5 notice and/or appear before the Assessing Officer within such time, the Assessing Officer will proceed in accordance with law upon expiry of four months. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition along with the connected application is disposed of. 8. There shall be no order as to costs. 9. Parties are directed to act on the basis of the server copy of this order” 6. As would appear from the above, in paragraph 6 of the aforesaid order the Court, to provide an opportunity to the petitioner to prepare his case had directed the assessing officer not to take any steps and / or keep the proceeding initiated, in effect, in abeyance for a period of four months. It was further provided that if the petitioner is unable to file a reply to the notice and / or appear before the assessing officer within such time, the officer shall proceed in accordance with law. 7. Admittedly, in this case, the assessing officer had passed the assessment order within the aforesaid period of four months. It is true that the petitioner did not file any reply before the order was passed. However, the same in my view could not have authorized the assessing officer to pass the order, especially when there was a specific embargo on the assessing officer / NFAC, to proceed within the period of four months. 6 8. Today, the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that he needs additional two months time to file response inasmuch as he is in the process of obtaining documents seized in connection with the criminal proceedings which are now pending before the PMLA Court, CBI Court and the Court of Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate at Siliguri, though applications for obtaining certified copies have been filed, the same is yet to be made available to the petitioner. Unfortunately, the aforesaid submissions are only made from the bar and are not supported by any documentary evidence. 9. In the peculiar facts, this Court is not inclined to extend the period for filing the response by the petitioner by two months, however, for ends of justice, time to file response before the NFAC is extended by a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of server copy of this order. 10. If the petitioner files any response or in the event, the petitioner does not file any response within the extended period, the NFAC after expiry of the above period upon giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner in accordance with law, shall hear out and decide on the proceedings. 11. As a sequel thereto, order dated 19th February 2026 passed by the NFAC / assessing officer for the assessment year 2017-18 stands set aside. 12. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. 7 13. All parties shall act on the basis of server copy of this order duly downloaded from this Court’s official website. (RAJA BASU CHOWDHURY, J.)