2023 (5) TMI 493 - SCH - Income Tax

Validity of assessment order u/s 144 r.w.s. 144B - Special Leave Petition has been preferred only for the purpose of expunging the remarks made by the High Court in para 9 - HELD THAT - As sub-section (9) of Section 144B of the Act has been omitted subsequently and which was not before the High Court, we permit the Revenue to file a review application before the High Court and to point out the subsequent development and omission of sub-section (9) of Section 144B and as and when such a review application is filed within a period of six weeks from today, the High Court to consider the same in accordance with law and on its own merits and without raising the issue with respect to limitation, however, subject to giving an opportunity to the assessee. So far as the observations made in para 9 of the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court are concerned, we are of the opinion that the observations made in para 9 are unwarranted and not required. Accordingly, the observations made in para 9 of the impugned order are ordered to be expunged. With this, the present Appeal stands disposed of.

Summary

Issues involved:
The issues involved in the judgment are expunging observations made in para 9 of the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court and the subsequent omission of sub-section (9) of Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Expunging Observations in Para 9:
The Special Leave Petition was filed by the Revenue to expunge the observations made in para 9 of the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court. The Revenue argued that the observations were unwarranted and not required. The Supreme Court granted leave and ordered the observations made in para 9 to be expunged. The Appeal was disposed of accordingly.

Omission of Sub-section (9) of Section 144B:
The Revenue contended that sub-section (9) of Section 144B of the Act had been omitted w.e.f 01.04.2021. They argued that the High Court's judgment setting aside the Assessment Order based on subsection (9) was unsustainable. The Supreme Court permitted the Revenue to file a review application before the High Court to point out the subsequent development and omission of sub-section (9) of Section 144B. The High Court was directed to consider the review application in accordance with the law and on its own merits, subject to giving an opportunity to the assessee. The Supreme Court acknowledged that the omission of sub-section (9) was not before the High Court during the initial proceedings.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court granted leave in the Special Leave Petition and ordered the expunging of observations made in para 9 of the impugned judgment and order. Additionally, the Revenue was permitted to file a review application before the High Court regarding the subsequent omission of sub-section (9) of Section 144B. The judgment was disposed of accordingly, with pending applications also being disposed of.