Assessing Officer to Issue Detailed Order After Court Validates Notice; Parties to Follow Digital Order Conclusion.

The HC disposed of the writ petition, directing the Assessing Officer to issue a speaking assessment order, considering issues raised about prior assessments involving similar aspects. The court upheld the validity of the notice under Section 148A(b) of the IT Act, as the limitation for the relevant year had not expired. The parties were instructed to proceed based on the digitally signed order, concluding the matter.

---

---

Issues involved:
The judgment deals with a writ petition challenging an order passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, along with consequential notices issued under Section 148 of the Act and a notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act. The issues raised include the sustainability of the notices and the consideration of past assessment records in the current proceedings.

Sustainability of Notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act:
The petitioner contended that the notice dated 23.05.2022 issued under Section 148A(b) of the Act was unsustainable in law due to a reference to a Supreme Court decision. The petitioner argued that the limitation for the Assessment Year 2019-20 had not expired at the relevant time. However, the respondent argued that since the limitation had not expired, the notice was sustainable under the Act. The court agreed with the respondent that the notice could not be declared untenable, as the limitation for the relevant year would expire later. The notice was issued under the new regime of Section 148A(b) of the Act, which was found to be valid.

Consideration of Past Assessment Records:
The petitioner raised concerns regarding the genesis of the reassessment triggered against them, which stemmed from a survey conducted on the petitioner and others. The petitioner argued that the reasons for initiating proceedings were similar to those for past assessment years. The petitioner pointed out that the issues in the current assessment were also addressed in the assessments for the preceding years. The court acknowledged the importance of considering past assessment records before passing the assessment order. It was noted that even though each assessment year is different, if the reasons for reopening are consistent or the same, the principle of consistency should be applied by the Assessing Officer.

Conclusion:
The court disposed of the writ petition with directions for the Assessing Officer to pass a speaking assessment order taking into account the issues raised regarding the completion of assessments for prior years involving similar aspects. The parties were instructed to act based on the digitally signed copy of the order, thereby concluding the matter.

---