2023 (5) TMI 366 - HC - Income Tax

Reopening of assessment - challenge to order passed u/s 148A(d) at an intermediate stage - HELD THAT - This Court has in its order in a batch of writ petitions in Kailash Kedia v. Income Tax Officer 2022 (12) TMI 188 - ORISSA HIGH COURT was a lead matter, declined to interfere relegating the parties to a stage of passing of assessment orders under Section 148 of the Act. In doing so, this Court followed the order of the Supreme Court of India Anshul Jain v. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 2022 (10) TMI 3 - SC ORDER which in turn affirmed the judgment of Anshul Jain v. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax) 2022 (6) TMI 1310 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT . Supreme Court of India declined to interfere with the order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Red Chilli International Sa les 2022 (6) TMI 417 - PUNJAB HARYANA HIGH COURT matter. Consequently, this Court is not persuaded that it should interfere with the impugned order dated 24th November, 2022 in the present case under Section 148A(d) of the Act.

Summary

Issues: Challenge to order under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 at an intermediate stage.

Analysis:
1. The High Court previously declined to interfere in a batch of writ petitions challenging orders under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, following the Supreme Court's decision in Anshul Jain v. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax.
2. A subsequent order by a different Supreme Court bench in Red Chilli International Sales v. Income Tax Officer highlighted the need for a deeper examination of jurisdiction preconditions for issuing notices under Section 148 of the Act due to amendments by the Finance Act, 2021.
3. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's observations, emphasizing that the issue of maintainability of writ petitions should be examined in depth by the High Court when it arises for consideration.
4. Despite the Supreme Court's decision in Red Chilli International Sales, the High Court found no reason to interfere with the impugned order dated 24th November, 2022, under Section 148A(d) of the Act.
5. The Petitioner argued that the notice under Section 148A(b) was time-barred and vitiated by a 'mere change of opinion' by the Assessing Officer.
6. The Court reiterated that the Petitioner can raise all available grounds at the appropriate stage, as clarified in a previous order.

This detailed analysis of the judgment provides a comprehensive overview of the issues involved and the Court's reasoning behind its decision not to interfere with the impugned order.