The assessment order became void due to the issuance of a new notice under section 148, rendering earlier proceedings infructuous.

ORDER :

BHARGAV D. KARIA, J.

1. Heard learned Senior Advocate Mr. Tushar Hemani with learned advocate Mr. Parimalsinh Parmar for the petitioner and learned Senior Standing Counsel Mr. Karan Sanghani for respondent No.1.

2. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:

“(a) quash and set aside the impugned notice dated 3.03.2021 (At Annexure A to this petition], the impugned Assessment Order dated 29.03.2022 along with consequential demand notice dated 29.03.2022 [At Annexure B (Colly) to this petition] as well as the impugned Rectification order dated 04.07.2024 along with consequential demand notice dated 09.07.2024 [at Annexure C (Colly) to this petition] for the Assessment Year 2014-15;

(b) pending the admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition, stay the implementation and operation of the impugned Assessment Order dated 29.03.2022 along with consequential demand notice dated 29.03.2022 [at Annexure B Colly) to this petition] as well as the impugned rectification order dated 04.07.2024 along with consequential demand notice dated 09.07.2024 [at Annexure C (Colly) to this petition] for the Assessment Year 2014-15;

(c) pending the admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition, direct the respondent authorities not to take any coercive steps towards recovery of demand as per the impugned Assessment Order dated 29.03.2022 along with consequential demand notice dated 29.03.2022 [at Annexure B (Colly) to this petition] and the impugned Rectification Order dated 04.07.2024 with consequential demand notice dated 09.07.2024 [at Annexure C (Colly) to this petition] for the Assessment Year 2014-15;

3. Brief facts of the case are as under:

3.1 The petitioner filed return of income for the assessment year 2014-15 on 21.01.2015 declaring total income at ‘Nil’ and book profit at Rs. 1,27,73,560/-.

3.2 The case of the petitioner was selected for scrutiny assessment and assessment order dated 20.12.2016 was passed under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act,1961 [for short ‘the Act’] accepting the returned income.

3.3 Thereafter, notice dated 31.03.2021 was issued under section 148 of the Act to reopen the assessment for the year under consideration which according to the petitioner, was served by Email dated 01.04.2021.

3.4 During the course of re-assessment proceedings, various details were called for by the Assessing Officer which were duly furnished by the petitioner. Thereafter, the assessment was framed under section 147 read with section 144B of the Act by order dated 29.03.2022 determining the total income at Rs. 64,53,72,000/-.

3.5 Being aggrieved, the petitioner preferred the appeal before the CIT(A) on 23.04.2022.

3.6 It is the case of the petitioner that a controversy revolving around the reopening was going on for the notices issued under section 148 during the period from 01.04.2021 to 30.06.2021 under the Taxation and Other Laws [Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions] Act, 2020 [‘TOLA’ for short] by following the provisions of section 147 and 148 applicable till 31.03.2021 despite the fact that new regime for reopening of assessment was applicable with effect from 01.04.2021.

3.7 The Hon’ble Apex Court, by Judgment dated 04.05.2022 passed in case of Union of India vs. Ashish Agarwal reported in (2022) 444 ITR page 1 (SC) adjudicated the issue as to the validity of such reopening notices deemed to have been issued under the new regime after 01.04.2021 as a valid notice.

3.8 It appears that the respondent pursuant to the aforesaid order passed by the Apex Court again initiated reassessment proceedings in case of the petitioner for the year under consideration by issuing notice under section 148 of the Act and order dated 26.07.2022 was passed thereafter under section 148A(d) of the Act holding that there is escapement of income chargeable to tax to the tune of Rs.64,53,72,000/- in the hands of the petitioner.

3.9 It is the case of the petitione