9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (12) TMI 1424 - HC - Income TaxReopening of assessment u/s 147 - validity of Order passed u/s 148A(d) and notice u/s 148 - period of limitation - petitioner as pleaded that proceedings were time barred as the window available to the respondent/revenue for issuance of fresh notices under the new regime was available only between 01.04.2021 and 30.06.2021 - Addition u/s 68 - HELD THAT - Revenue, cannot but accept that insofar as the first aspect is concerned i.e., limitation, the same is covered by the judgment rendered by the coordinate bench in Suman Jeet Agarwal 2022 (9) TMI 1384 - DELHI HIGH COURT For second aspect revenue says that there is no specific assertion in the counter-affidavit. Therefore, quite clearly, the department has not taken a stand either way, on the assertion made that the said amount has been taxed in the hands of the creditor. Thus, for the foregoing reasons we are inclined to set aside the impugned order passed under Section 148A(d) and notice issued u/s 148 of the Act.
Issues:
1. Validity of the order passed under Section 148A(d) and notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Time limitation for issuance of fresh notices under the new regime. 3. Taxation of income under Section 68 of the Act in the hands of the creditor. Analysis: Issue 1: Validity of the order passed under Section 148A(d) and notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 The petitioner sought the quashing of the order passed under Section 148A(d) and the notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, both dated 22.07.2022. These were based on a notice dated 28.06.2021 for Assessment Year 2014-2015. The petitioner argued that the proceedings were time-barred as the notice was dispatched on 14.07.2021, outside the window available for issuance of fresh notices under the new regime. The petitioner relied on a judgment of a coordinate bench to support this argument. The respondents did not contest the limitation aspect and did not take a clear stand on the taxation of the amount in the hands of the creditor. Consequently, the impugned order and notice were set aside by the Court. Issue 2: Time limitation for issuance of fresh notices under the new regime The crux of the issue was whether the notice dated 28.06.2021, dispatched on 14.07.2021, fell within the window available for issuing fresh notices under the new regime. The petitioner contended that since the notice was dispatched after the specified period, the proceedings were time-barred. This argument was supported by a judgment of a coordinate bench. The respondents did not dispute this contention, leading the Court to rule in favor of the petitioner and set aside the impugned order and notice. Issue 3: Taxation of income under Section 68 of the Act in the hands of the creditor The petitioner also raised the issue of the income, alleged to have escaped assessment, being taxed in the hands of the creditor under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act. The respondents did not provide a clear stance on this assertion in the counter-affidavit. As a result, the Court did not find any specific assertion from the department regarding the taxation of the amount in the hands of the creditor. This lack of clarity further supported the decision to set aside the impugned order and notice. In conclusion, the Court disposed of the writ petition in favor of the petitioner, setting aside the impugned order passed under Section 148A(d) and the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The judgment highlighted the importance of adhering to the specified time limitations for issuing notices under the new regime and the need for clarity in tax assessments to avoid ambiguity and potential discrepancies in taxation matters.
|
