Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 76483
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
C. Saravanan, J
Samuel Gnanaraj – Appellant
Versus
Income Tax Officer – Respondent
W.M.P.Nos.21792 & 21793 of 2022
Important Points
Subject
Tax Law - Income Tax Reassessment
Act Referred
Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020: S.3(1)
Constitution of India: Art.226
Headnote
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a wholesale dealer, challenged an order passed under Section 148A(d) and a subsequent reassessment notice under Section 148 for the Assessment Year 2014-2015, asserting that the assessment was already completed previously and questioning the procedural compliance.
Findings of Court:
While the notice itself was held to be within the permissible limitation period as extended by TOLA, the court found infirmity in the impugned order due to non-consideration of the petitioner's detailed replies and supporting evidence regarding cash deposits.
Issues: Whether the reassessment notice under the new regime was time-barred and whether the authorities followed the due process of considering the assessee's reply.
Ratio Decidendi: An order under Section 148A(d) must manifest application of mind to the specific contentions and documents provided by the assessee in response to a show-cause notice; failing which, such an order is unsustainable and warrants a de novo consideration.
Result: Writ Petition partly allowed; impugned order/notice quashed and remitted for fresh adjudication.
For the Appellants/Petitioners: G.Vardini Karthik
For the Respondents: Avinash Krishnan Ravi
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of the petition challenging reassessment orders. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. application of supreme court rulings on deemed show-cause notices. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 3. computation of limitation periods and tola applicability. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29) |
| 4. requirement to substantively address assessee's reply for valid reassessment orders. (Para 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35) |
ORDER
1.Heard M/s G.Vardini Karthik, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr.Avinash Krishnan Ravi, learned Junior Standing Counsel for the Respondents.
2. In this Writ Petition, the Petitioner has challenged the Impugned Order dated 29.07.2022 passed by the respondent under Section 148A(d) of the Act under the New regime and the Impugned Notice dated 29.07.2022 issued by the respondent under Section 148 of the Act under the new regime for the Assessment Year 2014-2015
3. The Petitioner, a wholesale dealer of Aavin Milk products had earlier filed a Return of Income for the Assessment Year 2014-2015 on 17.11.2014 There the Petitioner had declared a gross turnover of Rs.32,11,48,134/-
4. The Return of Income was accompanied with Form No.3CB, wherein details of turnover, gross profit etc., for the previous year was declared. Later, a Scrutiny Assessment Order dated 29.06.2016 was also passed by the Assessing Officer under Section 143(3) of the Act.
5. Pursuant to the aforesaid Assessment Order dated 29.06.2016, a Reassessment Notice was issued under Section 148 of the Act on 08.04.2021 under the old regime as in force till 31.03.2021. The Petitioner also filed a reply to the same, pursuant to which a further Notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was issued on 15.11.2021 to which also the Petitioner replied on 14.12.2021
6. Meanwhile, the Hon’ble Supreme Court delivered its verdict in Union of India Vs. Ashish Agarwal ., (2024) SCC Online SC 2693 on 04.05.2023, which was later clarified by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India Vs. Rajeev Bansal , 2024 SCC Online SC 2993.
7. In Paragraph No. 28 from Ashish Agarwal case (cited supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under:-
28. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the present Appeals are allowed in part. The impugned common judgments and orders passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in W.T. No. 524/2021 and other allied tax appeals/petitions, is/are hereby modified and substituted as under:
(i) The impugned section 148 notices issued to the respective assessees which were issued under unamended section 148 of the IT Act, which were the subject matter of writ petitions before the various respective High Courts shall be deemed to have been issued under section 148A of the IT Act as substituted by the Finance Act, 2021 and construed or treated to be show- cause notices in terms of section 148A(b). The assessing officer shall, within thirty days from today provide to the respective assessees information and material relied upon by the Revenue, so that the assessees can reply to the showcause notices within two weeks thereafter;
(ii) The requirement of conducting any enquiry, if required, with the prior approval of specified authority under section 148A(a) is hereby dispensed with as a onetime measure visàvis those notices which have been issued under section 148 of the unamended Act from 01.04.2021 till date, including those which have been quashed by the High Courts. Even otherwise as observed hereinabove holding any enquiry with the prior approval of specified authority is not mandatory but it is for the concerned Assessing Officers to hold any enquiry, if required;
(iii) The assessing officers shall thereafter pass orders in terms of section 148A(d) in respect of each of the concerned assessees; Thereafter after following the procedure as required under section 148A may issue notice under section 148 (as substituted);
(iv) All defences which may be available to the assesses including t
