TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Income Tax Notices Quashed for 2015-16; Issued After Limitation Period Expired Under Sections 148A(d) & 148</h1> <h3>Late Shri Rafiq Ahmed Querashi Son Of Late Shri Abdul Shakoor Versus Central Board Of Direct Taxes, Income Tax Officer, Ward 5 (2), Jaipur</h3> The Rajasthan HC quashed the notices issued under Sections 148A(d) and 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2015-16, as they were ... Reopening of assessment u/s 147 beyond period of limitation -Argument is that for assessment year 2015-16 the limitation expired on 31.03.2022 whereas the notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued on 28.07.2022 - HELD THAT:- The notice for the assessment year 2015-16 was time-barred as the limitation expired on 31.03.2022, yet the notice was issued on 28.07.2022. This argument was supported by the Supreme Court's decision in Rajeev Bansal [2024 (10) TMI 264 - SUPREME COURT (LB)] which acknowledged the expiration of the limitation period for the relevant assessment year. Writ petition is allowed. The Rajasthan High Court, presided over by Hon'ble Justice Avneesh Jhingan and Hon'ble Justice Shubha Mehta, addressed a petition seeking the quashing of an order and notice issued under Sections 148A(d) and 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner, represented by Mr. Siddharth Ranka and Mr. Rohan Chatter, argued that the notice for the assessment year 2015-16 was time-barred as the limitation expired on 31.03.2022, yet the notice was issued on 28.07.2022. This argument was supported by the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India & Ors. Vs. Rajeev Bansal, which acknowledged the expiration of the limitation period for the relevant assessment year. The respondents, represented by Mr. Sandeep Pathak and Mr. Palash Gupta, could not distinguish the present case from Rajeev Bansal. The court concluded that the reassessment was time-barred, rendering the impugned notices invalid. Consequently, the writ petition was allowed, and the notices were quashed on the ground of being time-barred.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
