Reassessment notices issued under the old regime between April 1, 2021, and June 30, 2021, are deemed valid show-cause notices under the new regime, and proceedings under the new regime are not barred by limitation if the initial notice was issued within the statutory period prescribed under the old regime.

ORDER

1.In this Writ Petition, the Petitioner has challenged the order dated 28.07.2022 passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 under the new regime as in force with effect from 01.04.2021 for the Assessment Year 2014-2015 passed by the 1st Respondent.

2. The impugned order dated 28.07.2022 passed under Section 148A(d) of the Act and the consequential Section 148 Notice dated 29.07.2022 under the new regime was issued in the light of the Judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ashish Agarwal Vs. Union of India ., (2023) 1 SCC 617 on 04.05.2022

3. This is the second round of litigation before this Court. Earlier, the petitioner was issued with a Notice dated 30.06.2021 under Section 148 of the Act under the old regime as in force till 31.03.2021 for the Assessment Year 2014-2015.

4. The said Notice dated 30.06.2021 issued under the old regime was the subject matter of a challenge by the Petitioner in W.P.16444 of 2021, which came to be disposed by this Court vide Order dated 04.02.2022, whereby this Court quashed the impugned Section 148 Notice issued under the old regime stating it ought to be issued in accordance with the new regime of the Act.

5. Meanwhile, the Hon’ble Supreme Court delivered its judgement in Ashish Agarwal case, referred to supra which later clarified by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India Vs. Rajeev Bansal , 2024 SCC Online SC 2993.

6. It is in this background, a fresh Notice dated 19.05.2022 under Section 148A(b) of the Act under the new regime was issued to the Petitioner for the Assessment Year 2014-2015 in the light of the aforesaid decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, to which the petitioner replied on 03.06.2022 which culminated in the impugned order.

7. The challenge to the impugned proceeding is mainly on the ground that no approval was obtained by the Respondent from the ‘specified authority’ in accordance with Section 151 of the Act under the new regime before the issuance of Notice dated 19.05.2022 under Section 148A(b) of the Act to re-open the assessment.

8. The specific case of the Petitioner is that the impugned re-assessment proceedings are devoid of merits, as the petitioner was not given an adequate opportunity to reply to the Notice dated 19.05.2022 under Section 148A(b) of the Act.

9. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner had also elicited information by filing an application dated 21.07.2022 under Section 19(1) of the RTI Act, as to whether indeed approval was obtained by the Respondent from the ‘specified authority’ under Section 151 of the Act under the new regime. It is stated that the reply elicited by the petitioner has confirmed that indeed no reply was obtained by the Respondent from the ‘specified authority’ before issuance of the re-assessment notice.

10. The Learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Respondents, on the other hand, would submit that approval from ‘specified authority’ viz., Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Tamil Nadu and Puducherry was indeed obtained by the Respondent before issuance of the re-assessment notice.

11. That apart, the Learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Respondent would submit that with regard to the aspect of limitation the issue has been answered against the petitioner in terms of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in in Ashish Agarwal case, referred to supra and Rajeev Bansal case, referred to supra.

12. I have heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Junior Standing Counsel for the Respondent and have perused the documents and the l