Court rules in favor of petitioner due to lack of authority approval & income threshold not met. Impugned notices quashed.

The court ruled in favor of the petitioner in the reassessment proceedings for AY 2017-18. The court found that the approval of the specified authority was lacking, and the escaped income was below the threshold requirement. Consequently, the impugned notice and order under the Income Tax Act were quashed, along with the consequential notice. The interim order was vacated, and the writ petition was disposed of in favor of the petitioner.

---

---

Issues involved:
The issues involved in this judgment are related to the reassessment proceedings for Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18, specifically focusing on the approval of the specified authority and the threshold requirement under Section 149(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Reassessment Proceedings:
The petitioner, represented by Mr. Nitin Gulati, raised concerns regarding the flaws in the reassessment proceedings, highlighting that the proceedings lacked the approval of the specified authority. Additionally, it was noted that the escaped income was below the threshold requirement of Rs.50,00,000 as per Section 149(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The respondents, represented by Mr. Aseem Chawla, acknowledged that the escaped income was indeed below Rs.50 lakhs. Moreover, it was observed that more than three years had passed since the end of the Assessment Year in question. Despite the opportunity to file a counter-affidavit, the department did not do so, leading the court to accept the correctness of the facts as presented in the writ petition.

Judgment and Disposition:
In light of the above, the court found in favor of the petitioner and allowed the prayer made in the petition. Consequently, the impugned notice issued under Section 148A(b) and the order passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 were quashed. The consequential notice issued under Section 148 of the Act was also quashed. The interim order was vacated, and the interlocutory application was closed. The writ petition was disposed of in accordance with the above terms.

---