Reassessment notices under sections 148A(b), 148, and 148A(d) quashed for completed proceedings on identical grounds

The Delhi HC quashed reassessment notices under sections 148(A)(b), 148, and order under section 148(A)(d) where the assessee had already undergone completed reassessment proceedings for the same assessment year. The court held that respondents cannot reinitiate assessment proceedings on identical grounds without new information or additional grounds of income escapement. Following the precedent in Anindita Sengupta case, the court ruled that Ashish Agarwal decision applies only to pending proceedings, not concluded assessments. The writ petition was allowed in favor of the assessee.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of proceedings initiated u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Legality of notices issued u/s 148A(b) and the consequential order u/s 148A(d).
3. Authority to reopen reassessment proceedings based on the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India v. Ashish Agarwal.

Summary:

1. Validity of Proceedings Initiated u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961:
The petitioner challenged the notice dated 1 June 2022 issued u/s 148A(b), the consequential order dated 16 July 2022 passed u/s 148A(d), and the notice dated 16 July 2022 issued u/s 148 for AY 2015-16. The initial notice for reassessment was issued on 31 March 2021, and the petitioner filed her ITR on 14 January 2022. An assessment order u/s 147 read with Section 144A(b) was passed on 31 March 2022 by NFAC, making an addition of Rs. 6,54,78,799/- to the petitioner's income. The petitioner contended that the AO erroneously assumed jurisdiction u/s 147 despite becoming functus officio after the assessment order dated 31 March 2022.

2. Legality of Notices Issued u/s 148A(b) and the Consequential Order u/s 148A(d):
The petitioner argued that the reassessment proceedings were already concluded, and no fresh proceedings were justified. The respondents issued a show cause notice u/s 148A(b) on 1 June 2022, which was replied to by the petitioner. Despite this, an order u/s 148A(d) was passed on 16 July 2022, alleging an escapement of income of Rs. 65,47,78,967/-, and a notice u/s 148 was issued on the same date. The respondents contended that the notice dated 31 March 2021 should be deemed a show cause notice u/s 148A(b) as per the Supreme Court's decision in Ashish Agarwal.

3. Authority to Reopen Reassessment Proceedings Based on the Supreme Court's Decision in Union of India v. Ashish Agarwal:
The Court examined whether the decision in Ashish Agarwal allowed the respondents to reopen concluded reassessment proceedings. The Court noted that the decision in Ashish Agarwal was confined to matters where notices were issued, but proceedings had not yet attained finality. The Court referred to its decision in Anindita Sengupta, which held that Ashish Agarwal did not mandate reopening completed assessments. The Court concluded that the respondents erred in reopening the concluded reassessment proceedings without new information or additional grounds of escapement of income.

Conclusion:
The High Court quashed the impugned notices dated 1 June 2022 and 16 July 2022 issued u/s 148A(b) and 148, respectively, and the order dated 16 July 2022 passed u/s 148A(d). The writ petition was allowed, and the pending application(s) were disposed of.

---