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) 2351

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR, J.
Tuffwud (India) Pvt. Ltd, Represented Herein By Its Director Mr. Shantam Choudhary - Petitioner
Versus
Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 7(1)(1), Bangalore – Respondent 
Writ Petition No. 16790 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 beyond the established statutory limitation are invalid and must be quashed, emphasizing compliance with timelines set by legal precedents in tax law.

Headnote:(A) Income-Tax Act, 1961 - Sections 148 and 148A(d) - Notice issued beyond limitation - Impugned notices dated 18.07.2022 and orders dated 29.07.2022 quashed as they are barred by limitation as per the apex court's directives in Ashish Agarwal and Rajeev Bansal's cases. The court reiterated that notices must be issued within the surviving time limit post the provision amendments. (Paras 4-10)

(B) Legal fiction regarding notices deemed to have been issued under section 148A(b) post-amendment requires the Assessing Officer to act within specified timelines, failing which notices are invalid and must be quashed. (Paras 10-11)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner faced notices under sections 148 and 148A(d) regarding tax assessment for 2014-15, claiming issuance was invalid due to limitation issues established by related High Court judgments. The petitioner replied to the assessing officer's request for information, but subsequent notices were issued post the expiration of limitation as clarified by precedential judgments.

Findings of Court:
The court found the respondent's actions as barred by law, quashing the impugned notices and orders.

Issues: The key issue was whether the notices were issued within the allowed time frame as per applicable statutes.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that notices dated after the established limitation were invalid, emphasizing the necessity for compliance with time constraints in tax law.

Result: Petition allowed, impugned orders and notices quashed.

Table of Content
1. petitioner seeks to quash tax-related notices. (Para 1)
2. court examined arguments and evidence. (Para 2)
3. delays in issuing tax notices were highlighted. (Para 3 , 4)
4. respondent contends lack of merit in petition. (Para 5)
5. petitioner's arguments reflect on legal timelines. (Para 6)
6. legal timelines for notices were discussed. (Para 7 , 8)
7. invalid notice issuance acknowledged. (Para 9)

ORDER :

S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR, J.

In this petition, petitioner seeks for following reliefs:

(i) Quashing the impugned order dated 29.07.2022 bearing ITBA/COM/F/17/2022-23/1044316681(1) passed by respondent No.1 under Section 148A(d) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961, for the Assessment year 2014-15 (Annexure-A);

(ii) Quashing the impugned notice dated 29.07.2022 and the accompanying document 30.07.2022 bearing ITBA/AST/S/091/2022-023/1044331509(1) issued by respondent Nos.1 and 2 respectively under Section 148 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961, for the Assessment year 2014-15 (Annexures-B-1 and B-2) 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.

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 29.06.2021 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 available under section 149 of the IT Act and all rights and contentions which may be available to the concerned assessees and Revenue under the Finance Act, 2021 and in law shall continue to be available.”

4. In pursuance of aforesaid directions issued by the Apex Court, PAN INDIA which applied to the petitioner and the notice dated 29.06.2021 also, which was directed

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