Court rules against second notice under Section 148 of Income Tax Act, emphasizing assessment completion before subsequent notices.

The Court held that issuing a second notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act for the same assessment year, after an initial notice had been issued, was impermissible. Citing the decision in Aditya Medisales Ltd. vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, the Court emphasized that once an assessment is reopened, subsequent notices for the same purpose are not allowed until the assessment is completed. The second notice was deemed unlawful, set aside, and the petition was granted in favor of the petitioner. The Court advised the department to pursue relevant records lawfully despite the impermissible second notice.

---

---

Issues involved:
The judgment addresses the legality of issuing a second notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for reopening assessment when a notice has already been issued for the same assessment year.

Summary:

Issue 1: Reopening of Assessment
The petitioner sought to set aside a Notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 2012-13, claiming that the assessing officer sought to reopen the assessment based on reasons to believe that income had escaped assessment.

Issue 2: Legal Permissibility of Second Notice
The question raised was whether it was lawful for the assessing officer to issue a second notice under Section 148 for the same assessment year when a previous notice had already been issued. The Division Bench's decision in Aditya Medisales Ltd. vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax was cited to determine the legality of issuing a second notice for reassessment.

The Division Bench highlighted that once a notice is issued under Section 148, the assessment is reopened, and any further notice for the same purpose is impermissible until the assessment is completed. The Court emphasized that there cannot be two parallel assessments based on multiple notices for the same purpose.

The judgment concluded that the second notice for reopening the assessment for the same year cannot be sustained under the law. The impugned Notice dated 30.03.2019 was set aside, and the petition was allowed.

The petitioner's advocate suggested that the department could consider the grounds mentioned in the second notice, even though the second notice for reopening was deemed impermissible. The Court advised that if the department had relevant records, they could pursue them in accordance with the law.

---