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) 2237

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, Madan Gopal Vyas, JJ.
Vasaf Ali – Appellant
Versus
Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2) – Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5266/2022
Decided On : 13-04-2022

Advocates appeared:
Shafi Mohd. Chouhan, Advocate, for the Appellant
K.K. Bissa, Advocate, for the Respondents

The main legal point established in the judgment is that the provisions of reassessment contained in the Finance Act, 2021 apply to all notices issued after 01.04.2021, and any notices issued without following the prescribed procedure are invalid.

Headnote:

Income Tax - Re-assessment - Finance Act, 2021 - Section 148, Section 148A, Section 149 - The court discussed the provisions of reassessment contained in the Finance Act, 2021, highlighting the major departure from the previous scheme of reassessment. The court emphasized the changes in time limits for issuing notice for reassessment and the enabling provisions for the Assessing Officer to make inquiries. The court concluded that the newly introduced provisions under the Finance Act, 2021 would apply to all notices issued after 01.04.2021, and invalidated the notices of re-assessment issued without following the procedure contained in Section 148A of the Act.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner challenged the notice of re-assessment for the assessment year 2013-14, citing the recent judgment of the Division Bench in a similar case. The court found that the notices of re-assessment were issued after 01.04.2021 without following the procedure contained in Section 148A of the Act, and thus quashed the notices.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the notices of re-assessment were invalid and bad in law, and therefore quashed and set them aside. The appeals of the revenue were dismissed.

Issues: The issues involved in the petition were the validity of the notices of re-assessment issued after 01.04.2021 and whether the explanation contained in the notifications of CBDT could save the situation for the revenue.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the newly introduced provisions under the Finance Act, 2021 would apply to all notices issued after 01.04.2021, and invalidated the notices of re-assessment issued without following the procedure contained in Section 148A of the Act.

Final Decision: The court quashed and set aside the notices of re-assessment, and dismissed the appeals of the revenue.

JUDGMENT

1. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that till date assessment order has not been passed.

2. The petitioner has challenged the notice of re-assessment for the assessment year 2013-14, which notice was issued on 13.04.2021. Learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the issues involved in the petition are squarely covered by the recent judgment of the Division Bench dated 27.01.2022 in the case of Sudesh Taneja v. Income Tax Officer and others [D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 969/2022], in which the Division Bench in 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 terms of the substituted Section 149(1) but without breaching the upper time limit provided in the original Section 149(1) which stood substituted. This aspect has also been highlighted in the memorandum explaining the proposed provisions in the Finance Bill. If according to the revenue for past period provisions of section 149 before amendment were appli

      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