Back
RAJIV SHAKDHER, GIRISH KATHPALIA
Ravina Bansal – Appellant
Versus
Income Tax Officer Ward 29(1) – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Rajiv Shakdher, J. (Oral)
CM APPL. 24650/2023
1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions.
W.P.(C) 6283/2023 and CM APPL. 24649/2023 [Application filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking interim relief]
2. This writ petition concerns Assessment Year (AY) 2014-15.
3. The petitioner/assessee has assailed via the instant writ petition, the order dated 21.07.2022 passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short, "Act"] and the consequential notice of even date i.e., 21.07.2022 issued under Section 148 of the Act.
3.1. Besides this, challenge is also laid to the notice dated 29.05.2022 issued under Section 148A(b) of the Act.
3.2. In addition thereto, there is also a challenge laid to Instruction No.1 of 2022 dated 11.05.2022, issued by the CBDT.
4. Ms Ananya Kapoor, learned counsel, who appears on behalf of petitioner/assessee, fairly concedes that no response was submitted by the petitioner/assessee to the aforementioned notice issued under Section 148A(b) of the Act.
4.1. Ms Kapoor's contention is that a reply was filed on 30.04.2023. In this context, Ms Kapoor draws our attention to Annexure P-16 appended on page 117 of the case file.
5. It is Ms Kapoor's co
The importance of timely assertion and the requirement for verification and personal hearing before passing an assessment order under the Income Tax Act.
Administrative orders can be set aside by courts if found to be flawed in execution, ensuring rectification of inaccuracies in legal processes.
The court determined that the reopening of assessment under Section 148A was unwarranted as the case fell under Section 153C due to insufficient adherence to procedural requirements.
The Assessing Officer must provide adequate reasoning for reassessment actions and ensure compliance with natural justice principles.
Reopening of assessment proceedings is invalid if it violates CBDT Instructions regarding threshold limits for escaped income, specifically when such income is below Rs.50,00,000.
Point of law: Petitioner is admittedly covered by proviso (c) to Section 148A, this Court is of the view that the impugned order and notice are untenable in law.
The court emphasized the importance of correct premise, sharing of relevant information, and clear understanding of the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in reassessment proceedings.
The central legal point established in the judgment is that reassessment proceedings must comply with the statutory provisions and CBDT instructions, and notices cannot be issued for assessment years....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
