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



IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Manmohan, Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, JJ.
Adroit Financial Services Private Limited - Appellant
Versus
Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax - Respondent
W.P.(C) 13733 of 2022 & CM Appls. 41909-41910 of 2022
Decided On : 22-09-2022




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.

Headnote:(A) Income Tax Act, 1961 - Section 148A(b), Section 148A(d), and Section 149(1)(b) - Reassessment proceedings - Notice issued for assessment year 2013-14 challenged on grounds of limitation as income alleged to have escaped assessment is less than Rs.50,00,000 - The court finds that the reopening of assessment is contrary to CBDT Instruction No. 01/2022 which prohibits notices on lower thresholds. (Paras 2, 4)

Findings of Court:
The impugned order under Section 148A(d) is quashed as it violates the specified CBDT instruction.

Issues: Whether the reopening of assessment proceedings is valid when the alleged escaped income is below the threshold limit of Rs.50,00,000.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that reopening of assessment is illegal if it contradicts the CBDT instructions regarding limit thresholds for issuing notices, thus protecting the rights of the taxpayer by ensuring compliance with procedural mandates.

Result: Writ petition allowed.

Table of Content
1. challenge of the notice under income tax act. (Para 1)
2. barred by limitation under section 149(1)(b) if amount is below threshold. (Para 2)
3. reopening of assessment violates cbdt instruction no.01/2022. (Para 3 , 4)
4. impugned order quashed due to violation of applicable provisions. (Para 5)
5. writ petition disposed. (Para 6)

JUDGMENT

Manmohan, J. (Oral)--Present writ petition has been filed challenging the notice dated 7th April, 2021 issued by Respondent No. 1 under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (`the Act'), order dated 29th July, 2022 passed by the Respondent No.1 under Section 148A(d) of the Act, the consequent initiation of reassessment proceedings vide notice dated 29th July, 2022 issued by Respondent No.1 under Section 148 of the Act for the assessment year 2013-14 and all consequential proceedings/actions initiated pursuant thereto.

2. Learned counsel for the Petitioner states that the proceedings for the assessment year 2013-14 initiated vide assessment notice dated 29th July, 2022 are barred by limitation in view of Section 149(1)(b) of the Act, as the proceedings have been initiated after expiry of three years from the end of the relevant assessment year and the income alleged to have escaped assessment is Rs.45,34,639 i.e. less than Rs.50,00,000. He emphasises that though Respondent No.1 has itself observed in the impugned order under Section 148A(d) of the Act that the amount alleged to have escaped assessment is below the threshold of Rs.50,00,000/-, yet Respondent No. 1 issued notice under Section 148 of the Act. The relevant extract of the order is reproduced hereinbelow:

    "6.10 Similarly as far as transaction amounting to Rs.926187/with entity M/s Jignesh Shah and concern in the absence of satisfactory evidence the reply is not considered tenable. Considering the discussion above it is observed that reply of the assessee with respect to transactions amounting to Rs.(926187 + 3608452) = Rs.4534639/- is below the threshold amount of Rs.50 lacs has escaped assessment for the A.Y. 2013-14.

    7. In light of the above facts and on the basis of material available on records, it is inferred that the case of M/s.Adroit Financial Services PVT LTD (PAN: AABCA1156D) is a fit case for issuing notice u/s 148 of the I.T. Act, 1961 for A.Y. 2013-14. This order is being passed with prior approval of Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi."

3. Issue notice. Mr.Sanjay Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents-revenue, accepts notice. He states that he has no instructions in the present case. He, however, does not dispute that the income alleged to have escaped assessment is less than Rs.50,00,000/-.

4. This Court is of the view that the reopening in the present case is in violation of CBDT Instruction No.01/2022 dated 11th May, 2022, wherein it has been clearly stated that notices in the cases pertaining to assessment years 2013-14, 2014-15 and 2015-16 cannot be issued, if the condition specified under Section 149(1)(b) is not fulfilled namely that income alleged to have escaped assessment should be Rs.50,00,000/- or more.

5. Consequently, as the impugned order under Section 148A(d) of the Act has been passed contrary to the CBDT Instruction No.1/2022, the same is quashed.(See: (2003) 5 SCC 528, Simplex Castings Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs [Vishakapatnam]; (2004) 3 SCC 488: 267 ITR 272 (SC), Commissioner of Customs v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.; (2002) 10 SCC 64, Collector of Central Excise, Vadodara vs. Dhiren Chemical Industries and (2012) 3 SCC 784: 343 ITR 270 (SC), Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd. vs. CIT)

6. Accordingly, the present writ petition along with applications stands disposed of.

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