9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (6) TMI 1134X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urt in Ashish Aggarwal s case, which according to Mr Jain would not apply qua the AY in issue, would have render the notice untenable, as it is common case of counsel for parties that after 01.04.2021, notices could have issued only under the new regime. Petitioner cannot but accept that the notice dated 23.05.2022 has been issued under the new regime, i.e., under Section 148A(b) of the Act. However Petitioner argument carry weight insofar as the second aspect is concerned, i.e., that since proceedings on the very same aspects have been dropped in other AYs, that aspect required attention of the AO. Since according to Petitioner assessment order has not been passed, the assessing officer will advert to the record of the earlier ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e. 3. In view of the directions that we propose to issue Mr Chawla says that he does not wish to file a counter-affidavit in the matter, and he will argue the matter based on the record presently available to the court. 4. Therefore, with the consent of the counsel for parties, the writ petition is taken up for hearing and final disposal, at this stage itself. 5. This writ petition is directed against order dated 30.07.2022 passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short, Act ]. Besides this, challenge is also laid to the consequential notice dated 31.07.2022 issued under Section 148 of the Act. 5.1 In addition, the petitioner has also assailed the notice dated 07.06.2021 issued under Section 148 of the Act and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... AY 2018-19 and scrutiny assessment carried out in AY 2020-21, also dealt with the issues which are subject matter of the AY with which the instant writ petition is concerned, i.e., 2019-20. 9. In sum, it is Mr Jain s contention that these aspects were put to the AO by the petitioner in his communication dated 13.06.2022, have not been considered by the AO while passing the order dated 30.07.2022, under Section 148A(d) of the Act. 10. Mr Chawla says, insofar as the first contention advanced by Mr Jain is concerned that the same is unsustainable in law. It is Mr. Chawla s contention that since limitation had not expired at the relevant point in time, the notice dated 23.05.2022 issued under Section 148A(b) of the Act is sustainable, no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ecord of the earlier assessment years before passing the assessment order. It is ordered accordingly. 17. We are conscious of the fact that the rule of res-judicata does not apply, i.e., that each assessment year is different. That being said, if the reasons for reopening are consistently similar or same, the assessing officer needs to apply the principle of consistency before passing the assessment order. [ See Radhasaomi Satsang v CIT (1992) 193 ITR 321 (SC)] 18. The assessing officer will thus accord personal hearing to the authorized representative of the petitioner. 19. For this purpose, the AO will issue a notice to the petitioner which would indicate the date and time of the hearing. Needless to add, the AO will pass a sp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
