2023 (1) TMI 674 - SCH - Income Tax

Scope of alternative remedy - Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - notice under Section 148A(b) - High Court 2022 (6) TMI 417 - PUNJAB HARYANA HIGH COURT held in the impugned judgment observing that the writ petition would not be maintainable in view of the alternative remedy - proceedings initiated are yet to be concluded by a statutory authority. HELD THAT - We with the petitioner that the impugned judgment rejecting the writ petition on the ground of alternative remedy does not take into consideration several judgments of this Court on the jurisdiction of High Court as writ petitions have been entertained to be examined whether the jurisdiction preconditions for issue of notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act 1961 is satisfied. The provisions of reopening under the Income Tax Act 1961 have undergone an amendment by the Finance Act 2021 and consequently the matter would require a deeper and in depth consideration keeping in view the earlier case law. Accordingly we set aside the observations made by the High Court in the impugned judgment observing that the writ petition would not be maintainable in view of the alternative remedy clarify that this issue would be examined in depth by the High Court if and when it arise for consideration. We do deem it open to examine this issue in the present case after having examined the notice under Section 148A (b) including the annexure thereto the reply filed by the petitioner and the order under Section 148A (d) of the Income Tax Act 1961.

Summary

Issues involved:
Jurisdiction of High Court in writ petitions challenging notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Analysis:
The Supreme Court considered the impugned judgment which rejected a writ petition on the ground of an alternative remedy. The Court noted that the High Court did not consider various judgments on its jurisdiction regarding writ petitions challenging the satisfaction for issuing a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court highlighted that amendments to the reopening provisions under the Income Tax Act by the Finance Act, 2021 necessitate a thorough reconsideration in light of previous case law.

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's observations and clarified that the issue of maintainability of a writ petition would be examined by the High Court in-depth when it arises for consideration. The Court emphasized that it is permissible to analyze this issue in the present case after reviewing the notice under Section 148A (b), along with the annexure, the petitioner's reply, and the order under Section 148A (d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Consequently, the special leave petition was disposed of by the Supreme Court, with a clarification that the dismissal of the petition should not be construed as a determination on the merits of the case. The Court also directed that any pending applications would be considered disposed of as well.