Court sets aside assessment & penalty orders, allowing objections to Section 148 notices. Compliance with GKN Driveshafts ruling emphasized.

The court set aside the assessment and penalty orders, allowing the petitioner to file objections to the Section 148 notices. The Assessing Officer was directed to pass a speaking order after considering the objections, providing a personal hearing, and furnishing relevant information to the petitioner. The court emphasized compliance with the Supreme Court's decision in GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer and acknowledged the petitioner's concession regarding the old reassessment regime.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of reassessment proceedings initiated under the old PAN.
2. Legitimacy of notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
3. Validity of assessment orders and penalty orders.
4. Alleged discrepancies in income assessment due to non-participation in proceedings.
5. Time-barred nature of reassessment proceedings.
6. Requirement for the Assessing Officer to provide a speaking order after considering objections.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of Reassessment Proceedings Initiated Under the Old PAN:
The petitioner argued that the reassessment proceedings were initiated using an old PAN (AABCS4767J) which was no longer in existence after the company's name change and subsequent allocation of a new PAN (AAGCS4052D). The petitioner claimed that this led to a lack of information regarding the ongoing proceedings.

2. Legitimacy of Notices Issued Under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961:
The petitioner sought quashing of the notices dated 30.03.2021 issued under Section 148 of the Act, arguing that these notices were not served on them, thereby rendering the reassessment proceedings flawed. The court noted that the reliefs sought in the writ petitions were identical and pertained to the notices and subsequent assessment and penalty orders.

3. Validity of Assessment Orders and Penalty Orders:
The petitioner challenged the assessment orders dated 29.03.2022 and 30.03.2022, and the penalty orders imposed under various sections of the Act (271(1)(b), 271(1)(c), 271F, and 272A(1)(d)). The court observed that the total demand raised against the petitioner amounted to Rs. 3,04,62,78,055/- for the assessment years in question.

4. Alleged Discrepancies in Income Assessment Due to Non-Participation in Proceedings:
The respondent claimed that the petitioner continued to carry out export transactions under the old PAN, leading to discrepancies in the amounts said to have escaped taxation. The petitioner refuted this, asserting that all transactions were registered under the new PAN and duly incorporated in the returns and books of accounts. The court noted that the Assessing Officer was unable to reconcile these discrepancies due to the petitioner's non-participation in the proceedings.

5. Time-Barred Nature of Reassessment Proceedings:
The petitioner contended that the reassessment proceedings were time-barred. However, the court did not provide a detailed analysis on this issue within the judgment.

6. Requirement for the Assessing Officer to Provide a Speaking Order After Considering Objections:
The court directed that the best way forward would be to allow the petitioner to file objections to the Section 148 notices in line with the Supreme Court's decision in GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer. The Assessing Officer was instructed to deal with these objections and pass a speaking order. The court set aside the assessment and penalty orders and provided a timeline for the petitioner to file objections and for the Assessing Officer to complete the process, including personal hearings and furnishing any information or material to the petitioner.

Conclusion:
The court disposed of the writ petitions by setting aside the assessment and penalty orders, allowing the petitioner to file objections to the Section 148 notices, and directing the Assessing Officer to pass a speaking order after considering the objections and providing a personal hearing. The court emphasized the need for the Assessing Officer to furnish any relevant information to the petitioner before inviting objections. The petitioner's concession regarding the applicability of the old reassessment regime was taken on record.

---