Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
MANMOHAN, MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA
South Asian Stocks Limited – Appellant
Versus
Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to the show cause notice and assessment order. (Para 1) |
| 2. petitioner's argument against the notice and claim of non-involvement. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. court's observation on the impact of prior scrutiny assessment. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 4. set aside impugned orders, direct fresh assessment. (Para 9) |
| 5. disposal of writ petition with rights and contentions left open. (Para 10) |
JUDGMENT
Manmohan, J. (Oral)
CM APPL. 33402/2022
Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
Accordingly, present application stands disposed of.
W.P.(C) 11340/2022 & CM APPL. 33401/2022
1. Present writ petition has been filed challenging the show cause notice dated 22nd March, 2022 issued under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [`the Act'] as well as the order passed under Section 148A(d) of the Act and notice issued under Section 148 of the Act both dated 06th April, 2022 for the Assessment Year 2018-19.
2. Learned counsel for the Petitioner states that a notice was issued to the Petitioner under Section 148A(b) dated 22nd March, 2022 stating that in the assessment proceedings of Vishesht Financial Services Private Limited (VFSPL), it was found that VFSPL had made trans
The issuance of reassessment notices must consider prior completed scrutiny assessments; failure to disclose relevant information breaches principles of natural justice.
A show cause notice under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act must contain specific allegations of income escapement; its absence renders the assessment invalid.
Orders based on vague allegations without specific details violate the right to a fair hearing under tax law.
Reassessing without a hearing contravenes natural justice principles; proceedings must ensure opportunities for taxpayer representation.
Administrative orders can be set aside by courts if found to be flawed in execution, ensuring rectification of inaccuracies in legal processes.
Second notice under Section 148A(b) is invalid when an initial notice under Section 148 has already been served; Supreme Court directions pertain to a different timeframe and do not apply.
The Court affirmed that vague show cause notices issued under Section 148A(b) lack compliance with natural justice, necessitating clear material for Assessee responses.
Assessing Officers must provide specific details in notices for effective response by Assessee, adhering to principles of natural justice.
The assessment order issued under Section 148 was set aside for violating procedural requirements established by the Supreme Court, emphasizing the necessity for the Assessing Officer to address obje....
The court held that the Assessing Officer's failure to consider the petitioner's detailed replies before passing the reassessment order violated procedural justice under the Income Tax Act.
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
