9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (9) TMI 744X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ially 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. As would be manifest from the aforesaid extract, the emphasis clearly was on the notices which formed the subject matter of challenge before various High Courts and the aim of the Supreme Court being to salvage the process of reassessment. This is further evident from the Supreme Court observing that the AO would thereafter proceed to pass orders referable to Section 148A (d). We consequently find ourselves unable to construe Ashish Agarwal as an edict which required completed assessments to be invalidated and reopened. Ashish Agarwal cannot possibly be read as mandating the hands of the clock being rewound and reversing final decisions which may have come to be rendered in the interregnum. Admittedly, in this case, assessment proceedings had already concluded on 26.03.2022 and the reassessment action was reinitiated on the same set of reasons vide Show Cause Notice dated 31.05.2022 under Section 148-A (b), leading to the passing of an order under Section 148-A (d) and issuance of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he aforesaid order, a notice under Section 148 of the Act came to be issued on 20.07.2022. Such order under Section 148-A (d) and the notice under Section 148 of the Act, both dated 20.07.2022, are subject matter of challenge in the present writ petition. 6. There is no dispute that the order under Section 148-A (d) and the notice under Section 148 of the Act, both dated 20.07.2022 for the AY 2014-15 are passed on identical facts as posed in the earlier reassessment, which had preceded the proposed action for reassessment. 7. Obviously, in this case, the right of the respondent to reopen the concluded assessment is based on a perceived reading of the decision of the Supreme Court in Ashish Agarwal (supra), wherein, the Supreme Court proceeded to frame the following operative directions: 28. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the present appeals are allowed in part. The impugned 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l of the assessee on 03.04.2021 and therefore said notice would be construed as a notice issued only on 03.04.2021 in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Suman Jeet Agarwal v. Income Tax Officer 2022 SCC On Line Del. 3141 . It has been submitted that the decision in Ashish Agarwal s case (supra) is applicable to all the notices under Section 148 issued during the period 01.04.2021 to 30.06.2022, treating them to be the notices under Section 148-A (b) of the Act, and therefore, that being the reason, the assessment order arising out of the non-est notice under Section 148 would also be void and non-est. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, has argued that the impugned order and impugned notice have been issued ignoring the fact that assessment order under Section 147 dated 26.03.2022 was already passed and that the judgment of the Supreme Court cannot be applied in the present case where proceedings have already culminated in an order passed under Section 147 on merits. 10. The right of the respondent to reopen the concluded assessment on the basis of the decision of the Supreme Court in Ashish Agarwal (supra) was the question which fell for our cons ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... thus derived a right to assail the initiation of reassessment proceedings on jurisdictional grounds by preferring objections which the AO was statutorily obliged to take into consideration before issuing notices under Section 148 of the Act. The Revenue on the other hand, and notwithstanding its folly of having erroneously proceeded under the erstwhile regime, was enabled to continue proceedings in accordance with the amended procedure as introduced by virtue of Finance Act, 2021 and thus avoid the specter of a fait accompli which it faced on account of some of the High Court decisions. This is apparent from the Supreme Court observing that the 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 conce ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
