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

2023 Supreme(Guj) 656

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
N.V. ANJARIA, NIRAL R. MEHTA, JJ.
Seven Star – Petitioner
Versus
The Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(3)(1), Surat – Respondent
R/Special Civil Application No. 4042 Of 2023 With R/Special Civil Application No. 4044 Of 2023 With R/Special Civil Application No. 4045 Of 2023
Decided On : 14-03-2023

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Jaimin A. Gandhi, Mr. Viresh I. Rudalal.
For the Respondent: Ms. Kalpana Raval.

The main legal point established in the judgment is that notices for reopening assessment must be issued within the permissible time limit as prescribed by the relevant provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Headnote:

Income Tax Act - Reopening of Assessment - Section 148, Section 148A(d) - 147, 149, 151 - The court found that the notices issued for reopening the assessment for the assessment years 2013-14 and 2014-15 under Section 148 and the orders passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 were beyond the permissible time limit and therefore, illegal and without jurisdiction.

Fact of the Case:

The petitions sought to challenge the notices issued for re-opening of the assessment for the assessment years 2013-14 and 2014-15 under Section 148 and the orders passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioners argued that the notices were barred on the ground of limitation, having been issued after six years from the end of the relevant assessment year.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that all the impugned notices under section 148 of the Act relatable to Assessment year 2013-14 or the assessment year 2014-15 were beyond the permissible time limit, therefore, liable to be treated illegal and without jurisdiction. The court set aside the notices and orders seeking to reopen the assessment for the mentioned assessment years.

Issues: The main issue was the legality of the notices issued for re-opening of the assessment for the assessment years 2013-14 and 2014-15 under Section 148 and the orders passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the notices were beyond the permissible time limit and therefore, illegal and without jurisdiction, based on the provisions of Section 147, 149, and 151 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Final Decision: The court set aside the notices and orders seeking to reopen the assessment for the assessment years 2013-14 and 2014-15 under Section 148 and Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

JUDGMENT :

(N.V. Anjaria, J.)

All these Special Civil Applications seek to challenge the notices issued for re-opening of the assessment for the assessment years concerned under Section 148 and the orders passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

1.1 The petitions involve similar facts and identical issues, therefore, they were heard together to be treated for disposal by this common judgment and order.

1.2 In the facts and circumstances of the case, having regard to the issues involved and with consent and request of learned advocates for the parties, all these Special Civil Applications were taken up for final consideration today.

2. Rule returnable in each of the Special Civil Applications forthwith. Learned advocate Ms. Kalpana Raval waives service of Rule in respective petition.

2.1 Heard learned advocate Mr. Jaimin Gandhi for the petitioners and learned advocate for the respondent.

3. In the present petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, the respective petitioners have called in question the notice issued by respondent-assessing officer under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 seeking to reopen the assessment in respect of assessment year 2013-14 or assessment year 2014-15 as the case may be. Also challenged are the orders passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act").

3.1 The details of date of notice, date of order under Section 148A(d) of the Act, assessment year, etc., in respect of all the petitioners are given in the table below,

Sr. No.

Special Civil Application No.

Date of original Notice under Section 148

Date of Order under Section 148A(d) / Date of Notice under Sec. 148 of the Act

Assessment Year

1.

4042 of 2023

25.06.2021

30.07.2022

30.07.2022

2013-2014

2.

4044 of 2023

7.04.2021

21.07.2022

21.07.2022

2014-2015

3.

4045 of 2023

6.04.2021

30.06.2022

30.06.2022

2013-2014

3.2 While in the respective impugned orders under section 148A(d) of the Act mentioned are the factual details and the reasons on the basis of which the assessing officer has found that the cases are fit to be reopened for the assessment in respect of the year under consideration, it is inter alia stated that the notice under section 148 of the Act was originally issued for the assessment years 2013-14 or 2014-15, as the case may be. All the said notices were treated as show-cause notice under section 148A(b) of the Act in light of the decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India vs. Ashish Agarwal[(2023) 1 SCC 617 : (2022) 444 ITR 1 (SC)], and that thereupon, the order under section 148A(d) was passed.

4. At the outset, learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the notice issued under section 148 of the Act and the consequential order under section 148A(d) of the Act issued by the department for assessment years 2013-14 and 2014-2015 are barred on the ground of limitation, the notices having been issued after passage of six years from the end of the relevant assessment year.

4.1 It was submitted that in view of the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Keenara Industries Pvt Ltd. vs. The Income Tax Officer being Special Civil Application No. 17321 of 2021 and allied petitions, decided on 07.02.2023, the question of legality of the notice issued in respect of Assessment Year 2013-14 and Assessment Year 2014-15 is covered and the impugned notice is without jurisdiction as it is beyond the time limit prescribed.

5. In order to properly understand the controversy and the applicable provisions in particular, prior to coming into force of Finance Act, 2021 called old regime as well as the provisions introduced in the Finance Act, 2021 described as new regime, the development of the law emanating from Keenara Industries Pvt. Ltd. (supra) in that regard may be revisited with, by noticing the aspects c

                        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