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

2022 Supreme(Raj) 720

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
Akil Kureshi, Rekha Borana, JJ.
Sandeep Dara S/o Shri Mahadev Prasad Dara - Petitioner
Vs.
Union Of India, Through The Secretary, Ministry Of Finance, Department Of Revenue, North Block, New Delhi - Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3145 of 2022
Decided On : 02-03-2022

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioners: Ms. Twinkle Purohit on behalf of Mr. Sanjeet Purohit
For the Respondents: Mr. K.K. Bissa

Headnote:

Income Tax Act, 1961 – Section 148-A – Writ petition involves identical issues – Petitioner assessee has challenged notice of re-assessment issued by assessing officer – Notice is issued and pertains to assessment period prior to said date – Held, Court are unable to persuade ourselves to accept this analysis of situation – In our understanding by virtue of notifications issued by CBDT substitution of reassessment provisions framed under the Finance Act, 2021 were not deferred nor could they have been deferred – Date of such amendments coming into effect remained – In result court find that notices impugned in respective petitions are invalid and bad in law – Same are quashed and set aside – Learned Single Judge committed no error in quashing these notices without recording separate reasons, impugned notice challenged in this petition is quashed – Petition disposed of.

ORDER :

1. This writ petition involves identical issues. The petitioner assessee has challenged the notice of re-assessment issued by the assessing officer. The notice is issued after 01.04.2021 and pertains to the assessment period prior to the said date. According to the petitioner, the notice is issued under the provisions for re-assessment contained in the Income Tax Act, 1961, which prevailed period prior to 01.04.2021, in particular, in this case the procedure laid down under Section 148-A of the Income Tax Act, which was inserted with effect from 01.04.2021 by the Finance Act, has been followed. The petitioner has, therefore, challenged the validity of the notice.

2. The revenue does not dispute these factual averments of the petitioner.

3. In a judgment delivered on 27.01.2022 in the case of Sudesh Taneja vs. Income Tax Officer and others [D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 969/2022], the Division Bench in the identical circumstances quashed the impugned notices of re-assessment making following observations:

    “37. In this context we have perused the provisions of reassessment contained in the Finance Act, 2021. We have noticed earlier the major departure that the new scheme of reassessment has made under these provisions. The time limits for issuing notice for reassessment have been changed. The concept of income chargeable to tax escaping assessment on account of failure on the part of the assessee to disclose truly or fully all material facts is no longer relevant. Elaborate provisions are made under Section 148A of the Act enabling the Assessing Officer to make enquiry with respect to material suggesting that income has escaped assessment, issuance of notice to the assessee calling upon why notice under Section 148 should not be issued and passing an order considering the material available on record including response of the assessee if made while deciding whether the case is fit for issuing notice under Section 148. There is absolutely no indication in all these provisions which would suggest that the legislature intended that the new scheme of reopening of assessments would be applicable only to the period post 01.04.2021. In absence of any such indication all notices which were issued after 01.04.2021 had to be in accordance with such provisions. To reiterate, we find no indication whatsoever in the scheme of statutory provisions suggesting that the past provisions would continue to apply even after the substitution for the assessment periods prior to substitution. In fact there are strong indications to the contrary. We may recall, that time limits for issuing notice under Section 148 of the Act have been modified under substituted Section 149. Clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 149 reduces such period to three years instead of originally prevailing four years under normal circumstances. Clause (b) extends the upper limit of six years previously prevailing to ten years in cases where income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment amounts to or is likely to amount to 50 lacs or more. Sub-section (1) of Section 149 thus contracts as well as expands the time limit for issuing notice under Section 148 depending on the question whether the case falls under clause (a) or clause (b). In this context the first proviso to Section 149(1) provides that no notice under Section 148 shall be issued at any time in a case for the relevant assessment year beginning on or before 01.04.2021 if such notice could not have been issued at that time on account of being beyond the time limit specified under the provisions of clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 149 as they stood immediately before the commencement of the Finance Act, 2021. As per this proviso thus no notice under Section 148 would be issued for the past assessment years by resorting to the larger period of limitation prescribed in newly substituted clause (b) of Section 149(1). This would indicate that the notice that would be issued after 01.04.2021 would be in

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 telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top