9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (9) TMI 657X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed 19.07.2022. In view of the position of law as enunciated in the case of Anindita Sengupta [ 2024 (4) TMI 96 - DELHI HIGH COURT] we find that there was no justification for the respondents to issue notices afresh seeking to reopen the proceedings which had been concluded prior to the judgment passed in Ashish Agarwal. The judgment passed in Ashish Agarwal [ 2022 (5) TMI 240 - SUPREME COURT] does not mandate the completed assessment being reopened. We are therefore unable to sustain the impugned action for reassessment. - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA For the Petitioner Through: Mr. Amol Sinha, Mr. Kshitiz Garg and Mr. Sourav Verma, Advs. For the Respondents Through: Mr. Debesh Panda, SSC along with Ms. Zehra Khan, Mr. Vikramaditya, JSCs, Mr. Vineet Gupta, Mr. Ojaswa Pathak and Mr. Anauntta Shankar, Advs. JUDGMENT RAVINDER DUDEJA, J. 1. This writ petition has been preferred seeking the following reliefs:- a) This Hon ble Court be pleased to allow the present Writ Petition and pass a writ of certiorari setting aside the initiation of reassessment proceeding vide issuance of a notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 19.07.2022 and separate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (d) of the Act came to be passed on 19.07.2022 and consequent thereto, a notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued on 19.07.2022, which is the subject matter of challenge in the present writ petition. 7. Undisputedly, order under Section 148A(d) of the Act for the AY 2014-15 and the notice under Section 148 of the Act for the AY 2014- 15 dated 19.07.2022 are based on identical facts as posed in the earlier reassessment and which had preceded proposed action for reassessment. 8. The right of the respondents to reopen the concluded assessment was ostensibly based on a perceived reading of the decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India vs. Ashish Agarwal (2023) 1 SCC 617. In this case, the Supreme Court held that a notice issued under Section 148 during the period beginning on 01.04.2021 and ending 30.06.2021 to be considered as a Show Cause Notice under Section 148A (b) of the Act. The Apex Court had held that the reassessment notice under Section 148 under the old law shall be deemed to be a Show Cause Notice under Clause (b) of Section 148-A of the new law substituted w.e.f. 01.04.2021. The learned counsel for the respondents states that even though the assessment had alr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... common judgments and orders [ Ashok Kumar Agarwal v. Union of India, 2021 SCC OnLine All 799 ] passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in WT No. 524 of 2021 and other allied tax appeals/petitions, is/are hereby modified and substituted as under: 28.1. The impugned Section 148 notices issued to the respective assessees which were issued under unamended Section 148 of the IT Act, which were the subject-matter of writ petitions before the various respective High Courts shall be deemed to have been issued under Section 148-A of the IT Act as substituted by the Finance Act, 2021 and construed or treated to be show-cause notices in terms of Section 148-A (b). The assessing officer shall, within thirty days from today provide to the respective assesses information and material relied upon by the Revenue, so that the assessees can reply to the show-cause notices within two weeks thereafter. 28.2. The requirement of conducting any enquiry, if required, with the prior approval of specified authority under Section 148- A(a) is hereby dispensed with as a one-time measure vis- -vis those notices which have been issued under Section 148 of the unamended Act from 1-4-2021 till date, i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts in the Act, coming to be enforced with effect from 01 April 2021, notices could have been issued only in terms of the substituted provisions, the Department appeared to have proceeded under the mistaken yet bona fide belief that those amendments were yet to be enforced. It was in the aforesaid background that it found that the ends of justice would warrant the notices issued with reference to the erstwhile provisions being saved and being read as referable to Section 148A (b). It was to subserve the aforesaid primary objective that Ashish Agarwal proceeded to hold that the impugned Section 148 notices would be deemed to have been issued under section 148A and treated to be show cause notices referable to clause (b) thereof. 23. As we read the penultimate directions which came to be framed, the procedure laid out in Ashish Agarwal clearly stood confined to matters where although notices may have been issued, proceedings were yet to have attained finality. This clearly flows from the impugned notices being ordained to be treated as show cause notices under Section 148A (b) and the concomitant liberty being accorded to AOs to proceed further in accordance with Section 148A(d). As w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... judgments rendered by some of the High Courts had left the Revenue remediless and resulting in no reassessment proceedings at all, even if the same are permissible under the Finance Act, 2021 and as per substituted sections 147. 25. However, we are of the firm opinion that Ashish Agarwal neither intended nor mandated concluded assessments being reopened. The respondent clearly appears to have erred in proceedings along lines contrary to the above as would be evident from the reasons which follow. Firstly, Ashish Agarwal was principally concerned with judgments rendered by various High Courts striking down Section 148 notices holding that the respondents had erred in proceeding on the basis of the unamended family of provisions relating to reassessment. They had essentially held that it was the procedure constructed in terms of the amendments introduced by Finance Act, 2021 which would apply. None of those judgements were primarily concerned with concluded assessments. It is this indubitable position which constrained the Supreme Court to frame directions requiring those notices to be treated as being under Section 148A (b) and for the AO proceeding thereafter to frame an order as c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
