Court quashes notice to reopen income tax assessment for 2013-14

The Court allowed the petition challenging the notice and order under the Income Tax Act to reopen the income tax assessment for the assessment year 2013-14. Citing a previous decision, the Court found in favor of the petitioner, quashing the impugned notice and order. Direct service through e-mode on the official email address was also permitted.

---

---

Issues involved:
Challenge to notice and order under Income Tax Act, 1961 for reopening income tax assessment for the assessment year 2013-14 on grounds of being bad in law and without jurisdiction.

Analysis:
The petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India sought to challenge a notice dated 27.07.2022 issued under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, along with an order dated 27.07.2022 passed under section 148A(d) to reopen the income tax assessment for the assessment year 2013-14. The petitioner requested various reliefs, including quashing the impugned notice and order, restraining the respondent from enforcing compliance, and seeking costs and any other reliefs deemed fit by the Court.

The Court noted that the issue at hand was already covered by a previous decision in the case of Keenara Industries Private Limited versus The Income Tax Officer, Surat. Urgent notice was issued to be returnable forthwith based on this precedent. The respondent was represented by learned senior standing counsel Mrs. Kalpana Raval and advocate Mr. Karan Sanghani.

During the hearing, the Court focused on the issue of limitation, particularly considering that the assessment year in question was 2013-14. Without providing separate reasoning, the Court found that based on the decision in the Keenara Industries Private Limited case, the present petition deserved to be allowed.

Consequently, the petition was allowed, and the notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act dated 27.07.2022, along with the impugned order under section 148A(d) dated 27.07.2022, were quashed and set aside. Additionally, the Court permitted direct service through e-mode on the official email address, in addition to the regular mode of service.

---