SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(SC) 398

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M.R. Shah, B.V. Nagarathna, JJ.
Union of India & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
Ashish Agarwal – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 3005 of 2022 with Civil Appeal No. 3006 of 2022 with Civil Appeal No. 3009 of 2022 with Civil Appeal No. 3007 of 2022 with Civil Appeal No. 3008 of 2022 with Civil Appeal No. 3010 of 2022 with Civil Appeal No. 3013 of 2022 with Civil Appeal No. 3011 of 2022 with Civil Appeal No. 3012 of 2022 with Civil Appeal No. 3014 of 2022 with Civil Appeal No. 3015 of 2022 with Civil Appeal No. 3016 of 2022 with Civil Appeal No. 3017 of 2022 with Civil Appeal No. 3019 of 2022 with Civil Appeal No. 3020 of 2022 with Civil Appeal No. of 2022 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 6448 of 2022) with Civil Appeal No. of 2022 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 5381 of 2022) with Civil Appeal No. of 2022 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 5079 of 2022) with Civil Appeal No. of 2022 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 6092 of 2022) with Civil Appeal No. of 2022 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 6534 of 2022) with Civil Appeal No. of 2022 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 6158 of 2022) with Civil Appeal No. of 2022 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 6316 of 2022) with Civil Appeal No. of 2022 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 6281 of 2022) with Civil Appeal No. of 2022 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 6545 of 2022) with Civil Appeal No. of 2022 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 6038 of 2022)
Decided On : 04-05-2022

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) :N. Venkataraman, ASG Santosh Kumar, Praneet Pranav, Raj Bahadur Yadav, Advocates
For the Respondent(s):C.A. Sundaram, Kavita Jha, Vaibhav Kulkarni, Anant Mann, Udit Naresh, Nishit Agrawal, Harsh Mishra, Upasna Agrawal, Mohit Kumar Bansal, Shubhakriti Gaur, Rakesh Gupta, Somil Agarwal, Ambhoj Kumar Sinha, Kapil Goel, Sandeep Goel, Dhananjay Garg, D. K. Garg, Abhishek Garg, Divyanshu Agrawal, Vaibhav Niti, Madhavi Agrawal, Abhinav Agrawal, Gaurav Jain, Akshita Goyal, Shubham Gupta, Archana Sahadeva, Abhinav Agrawal, Subodh S. Patil, Abhinav Merhotra, Kush Chaturvedi, Priyashree Sharma PH, Syed Faraz Alam, Advocates

IMPORTANT POINT
Reassessment – Under substituted provisions of IT Act vide Finance Act, 2021, no notice under Section 148 of IT Act can be issued without following procedure prescribed under Section 148A of IT Act.

Headnote:

Income Tax Act, 1961 – Sections 148 and 148A – Reassessment notices – Quashing of – Under substituted provisions of IT Act vide Finance Act, 2021, no notice under Section 148 of IT Act can be issued without following procedure prescribed under Section 148A of IT Act – All safeguards are provided before notice under Section 148 of IT Act is issued – -At every stage, prior approval of specified authority is required, even for conducting enquiry as per Section 148A(a) – However, Revenue cannot be made remediless and object and purpose of reassessment proceedings cannot be frustrated – Due to a bonafide mistake and in view of subsequent extension of time vide various notifications, Revenue issued impugned notices under Section 148 after amendment was enforced w.e.f. 01.04.2021, under unamended Section 148 – Same ought not to have been issued under unamended Act and ought to have been issued under substituted provisions of Sections 147 to 151 of IT Act as per Finance Act, 2021 – Impugned Section 148 notices issued to respective assessees which were issued under unamended Section 148 of IT Act, which were subject matter of writ petitions before various respective High Courts shall be deemed to have been issued under Section 148A of IT Act as substituted by Finance Act, 2021 and construed or treated to be show-cause notices in terms of Section 148A(b) – Assessing officer shall, within thirty days from today provide to respective assessees information and material relied upon by Revenue, so that assessees can reply to show-cause notices within two weeks thereafter – Requirement of conducting any enquiry, if required, with prior approval of specified authority under Section 148A(a) is hereby dispensed with as a onetime measure vis-à-vis those notices which have been issued under Section 148 of unamended Act from 01.04.2021 till date, including those which have been quashed by High Courts – Even otherwise, holding any enquiry with prior approval of specified authority is not mandatory but it is for concerned Assessing Officers to hold any enquiry, if required – Assessing officers shall thereafter pass orders in terms of Section 148A(d) in respect of each of concerned assessees – Thereafter after following procedure as required under Section 148A may issue notice under Section 148 (as substituted) – All defences which may be available to assesses including those available under Section 149 of IT Act and all rights and contentions which may be available to concerned assessees and Revenue under Finance Act, 2021 and in law shall continue to be available – Present order shall be applicable Pan India and all judgments and orders passed by different High Courts on the issue and under which similar notices which were issued after 01.04.2021 issued under Section 148 of Act are set aside and shall be governed by present Order and shall stand modified to that extent – Present order is passed in exercise of powers under Article 142 of Constitution of India so as to avoid any further appeals by Revenue on the very issue by challenging similar judgments and orders. (Paras 6.2, 6.5, 8, 10, 11 and 12)

Facts of the case:

Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned common judgment and order passed by High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Writ Tax No. 524/2021 and other allied writ tax petitions, by which the High Court has allowed the said writ petitions and has quashed several reassessment notices issued by the Revenue, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on the ground that the same are bad in law in view of the amendment by Finance Act, 2021 which has amended Income Tax Act by introducing new provisions i.e. Sections 147 to 151 w.e.f. 1st April, 2021, the Revenue has preferred present appeals.

Findings of Court:

Instead of quashing and setting aside the reassessment notices issued under unamended provision of IT Act, the High Courts ought to have passed an order construing the notices issued under unamended Act/unamended provision of the IT Act as those deemed to have been issued under Section 148A of the IT Act as per the new provision section 148A and the Revenue ought to have been permitted to proceed further with the reassessment proceedings as per the substituted provisions of sections 147 to 151 of the IT Act as per Finance Act, 2021, subject to compliance of all procedural requirements and the defences, which may be available to the assessee under the substituted provisions of Sections 147 to 151 of the IT Act and which may be available under the Finance Act, 2021 and in law.

Result : Appeals Partly allowed.

Judgement Key Points

Key Points: - The Court holds that reassessment notices issued under unamended Section 148 after 01.04.2021 should be deemed as issued under Section 148A as substituted by Finance Act, 2021, and treated as show-cause notices to proceed under substituted provisions (paras (!) - (!) ). - It directs that assessing officers provide information/material relied upon within 30 days and allow replies within two weeks, with further steps under Section 148A(d) and (b) following the substituted regime (paras (!) - (!) , (!) - (!) ). - It grants dispensation from prior approval for conducting enquiries as a one-time measure for notices issued under unamended Section 148 after 01.04.2021, and emphasizes that safeguards remain, with rights and defences preserved under Finance Act, 2021 (paras (!) - (!) , (!) - (!) ). - The decision uses Article 142 of the Constitution to settle PAN-India: it modifies and substitutes the Allahabad High Court judgment and applies across other High Courts to avoid ~9,000+ pending appeals, ensuring uniform application of substituted provisions (paras (!) - (!) , (!) - (!) ).

How to apply the substituted provisions of Sections 147 to 151 of the IT Act (Finance Act, 2021) to reassessment notices issued under unamended Section 148 after 01.04.2021?

What is the guidance on treating reassessment notices issued under unamended Section 148 as notices under Section 148A and proceeding with reassessment under the substituted provisions?

What is the scope of Article 142 of the Constitution of India in modifying and pan-India applying the High Court judgments on reassessment notices post-01.04.2021?


JUDGMENT

M.R. Shah, J.

Leave granted in SLP (C) Nos. 6448/2022, 5381/2022, 5079/2022, 6092/2022, 6534/2022, 6158/2022, 6316/2022, 6281/2022, 6545/2022, 6038/2022.

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned common judgment and order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Writ Tax No. 524/2021 and other allied writ tax petitions, by which the High Court has allowed the said writ petitions and has quashed several reassessment notices issued by the Revenue, issued under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on the ground that the same are bad in law in view of the amendment by the Finance Act, 2021 which has amended Income Tax Act by introducing new provisions i.e. sections 147 to 151 w.e.f. 1st April, 2021, the Revenue has preferred the present appeals.

2. Similar judgments and orders are passed by various other High Courts including High Court of Delhi; High Court of Rajasthan; High Court of Calcutta; High Court of Madras; High Court of Bombay, the particulars of which are as under:-

Sl. No.

Particulars

1.

Ashok Kumar Agarwal v. UOI (Allahabad HC)

Judgment passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad at Allahabad in Writ Tax No. 524/2021 dated 30.09.2021

2.

Bpip Infra Pvt. Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer & Others (Rajasthan HC)

Judgment in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13297/2021 passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Rajasthan at Jaipur dated 25.11.2021

3.

Mon Mohan Kohli v. ACIT (Delhi HC)

Judgment passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in W.P.(C) No. 6176/2021 dated 15.12.2021

4.

Bagaria Properties & Investment Pvt. Ltd. v. UOI (Calcutta HC)

Judgment passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta in W.P.O No. 244/2021 dated 17.01.2022

5.

Manoj Jain v. UOI (Calcutta HC)

Judgment passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta in W.P.A. No. 11950 of 2021 dated 17.01.2022

6.

Sudesh Taneja v. ITO (Rajasthan HC)

Judgment passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Rajasthan in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 969 of 2022 dated 27.01.2022

7.

Vellore Institute of Technology v. CBDT (Madras HC)

Judgment passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Madras in W.P. No. 15019/2021 dated 04.02.2022.

8.

Tata Communications Transformation Services v. ACIT (Bombay HC)

Judgment passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in Writ Petition No. 1334 of 2021 dated 29.03.2022

At this stage, it is required to be noted that approximately 90,000 such reassessment notices under section 148 of the unamended Income Tax Act were issued by the Revenue after 01.04.2021, which were the subject matter of more than 9000 writ petitions before various High Courts across the country and by different judgments and orders, the particulars of which are as above, the High Courts have taken a similar view and have set aside the respective reassessment notices issued under section 148 on similar grounds.

2.1 The common judgment and order passed by the Allahabad High Court is the subject matter of the present appeals. Shri N. Venkataraman, learned ASG, stated at the bar that the Revenue is contemplating to prefer appeals against the similar judgments and orders passed by various High Courts. However, as the issue is common and there will be multiplicity of the proceedings and to lessen the burden of this Court and for the reasons stated hereinbelow, as we propose to pass an order in exercise of powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India the present order shall govern all the other judgments and orders passed by various High Courts on the similar issue. Hence, we observe that the Revenue need not file separate individual appeals which may be more than 9000 in numbers.

2.2 In fact, we have heard Shri C.A. Sundaram, learned Senior Ad


Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top