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

2025 Supreme(Kar) 2317

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR, J.
 
Mr. Vineet Agrwal, S/o. V.N. Agrawal – Petitioner 
Versus
Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 3(3)(1), Bangalore – Respondent 
Writ Petition No. 16943 of 2022 (T-IT) C/W Writ Petition No. 16931 of 2022 (T-IT)
Decided On : 24-11-2025
 

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Sri. Sandeep Huilgol., Advocate
For the Respondent:Sri. E.I. Sanmathi., Advocate

Notices issued under the Income Tax Act beyond the statutory limitation set by Supreme Court precedents are invalid and must be quashed.

Headnote:(A) Income Tax Act, 1961 - Sections 148 and 148A(d) - Notices issued to petitioner were deemed invalid as they exceeded the limitation period established by the Apex Court in Union of India v. Ashish Agarwal and Rajeev Bansal cases - The order was quashed as it contradicted procedural timelines. (Paras 3-9)

(B) Limitation Period - It is crucial for assessing officers to adhere to the prescribed timelines in issuing notices under the amended tax laws. (Paras 6-9)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged notices and orders issued for the assessment year 2014-15 under the Income Tax Act, claiming they were barred by limitation due to amendments and timelines set by the Apex Court decisions. The respondent issued notices after the prescribed period had lapsed. (Paras 3-9)

Findings of Court:
The Court held that the notices issued after the expiration of the statutory timeline were invalid and therefore quashed both the orders and notices issued. (Paras 7-9)

Issues: The main issue addressed was whether the notices issued under the Income Tax Act were valid given the limitation set forth by previous Supreme Court rulings. (Paras 6-9)

Ratio Decidendi: The Court concluded that the timeline for issuance of notices must be strictly followed and that any failure to comply renders the notices time-barred and invalid. (Paras 9-10)

Result: The petitions were allowed, and the impugned orders and notices were quashed.

Table of Content
1. reliefs sought in petitions (Para 1)
2. precedent on limitation after notice amendment (Para 3)
3. petitioner's arguments on limitation (Para 4 , 5 , 6)
4. court's observations on limitation rules (Para 7 , 8)
5. court's conclusion on invalid notices (Para 9)

ORDER :

S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR, J.

The petitioner seeks for following reliefs in W.P.No.16943/2022:

(i) Quashing the impugned order dated 27.07.2022 bearing ITBA/COM/F17/2022-23/1044145499(1) passed by the 1st respondent under Section 148A(d) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 2014-15 (Annexure-A).

(ii) Quashing the impugned notice dated 27.07.2022 issued by the 1st respondent under Section 148 of income-tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year2014-15 (Annexure-B); and

(iii) Pass such other or further orders as this Hon'ble court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case, and in the interests of justice and equity.

The petitioner seeks for following reliefs in W.P.No.16931/2022:

(i) Quashing the impugned order dated 28.07.2022 bearing ITBA/COM/F17/2022-23/1044214801(1)) passed by the 1st respondent under Section 148A(d) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 2014-15 (Annexure-A).

(ii) Quashing the impugned notice dated 28.07.2022 issued by the 1st respondent under Section 148 of income-tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 2014-15 (Annexure-B); and

(iv) Pass such other or further orders as this Hon'ble court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case, and in the interests of justice and equity.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent and perused the material on record.

3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that in relation to the assessment year 2014-15, the respondent No.1 issued a notice dated 30.06.2021 under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, prior to the said provisions being amended w.e.f., 01.04.2021. Subsequently, in the case of Union of India vs. Ashish Agarwal [2022] 138 taxmann.com 64 (SC), the Apex Court while dealing with the aforesaid amendment and notices issued to the assessee under subsequent to the amendment, issued the following directions:

“10. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the present Appeals are ALLOWED IN PART. The impugned common judgments and orders passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in W.T. No. 524/2021 and other allied tax appeals/petitions, is/are hereby modified and substituted as under:

(i) The impugned section 148 notices issued to the respective assessees which were issued under unamended section 148 of the IT Act, which were the subject matter of writ petitions before the various respective High Courts shall be deemed to have been issued under section 148A of the IT Act as substituted by the Finance Act, 2021 and construed or treated to be showcause notices in terms of section 148A(b). The assessing officer shall, within thirty days from today provide to the respective assessees information and material relied upon by the Revenue, so that the assesees can reply to the showcause notices within two weeks thereafter;

(ii) The requirement of conducting any enquiry, if required, with the prior approval of specified authority under section 148A(a) is hereby dispensed with as a onetime measure visàvis those notices which have been issued under section 148 of the unamended Act from 01.04.2021 till date, including those which have been quashed by the High Courts. Even otherwise as observed hereinabove holding any enquiry with the prior approval of specified authority is not mandatory but it is for the concerned Assessing Officers to hold any enquiry, if required;

(iii) The assessing officers shall thereafter pass orders in terms of section 148A(d) in respect of each of the concerned assessees; Thereafter after following the procedure as required under section 148A may issue notice under section 148 (as substituted);

(iv) All defences which may be available to the assesses including those availab

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