Section 148A reopening assessment remains valid despite technical portal glitch preventing officer from viewing return

The Bombay HC dismissed a review petition challenging the validity of reopening assessment under Section 148A. The petitioner argued that due to a technical portal glitch preventing the Assessment Officer from seeing the filed return and request for reasons, the order violated binding precedents in Ashish Agarwal and G.K.N. Driveshafts cases. The HC held that Ashish Agarwal precedent did not apply since the Section 148 notice was issued before 01.04.2021, and G.K.N. Driveshafts did not establish that bona fide system errors render entire proceedings illegal. The court found no error apparent on record warranting review, noting the petitioner's submissions sought impermissible reappreciation of merits rather than valid review grounds.

---

---

Issues Involved:
Review of a common order passed in multiple writ petitions challenging assessment orders under the Income Tax Act, 1969 for different assessment years.

Comprehensive details of the judgment for each issue involved:

1) The primary grounds for seeking review of the common Order dated 04.11.2022 were based on the contention that the directions remanding the case for fresh assessment orders were contrary to the law laid down by the Supreme Court in previous cases. The Petitioner argued that the absence of furnishing reasons for reopening the assessment order vitiates the jurisdiction of the assessment order as held in previous cases.

2) The Revenue opposed the review petitions stating that there were no grounds for review and that the petitions partake of grounds of an appeal, which is impermissible in review jurisdiction. The Revenue argued that a technical glitch in the department's portal led to the assessment orders being passed without considering the return of income and request for reasons for reopening made by the Petitioner.

3) The background facts revealed that there were discrepancies in the communication between the department and the Petitioner regarding notices and requests for filing returns and reasons for reopening. The Revenue admitted to a genuine mistake due to a technical glitch, leading to the assessment orders being passed without considering the Petitioner's submissions.

4) The two main questions considered for deciding the review petitions were whether the order suffered from an error apparent on the face of the record based on previous judgments and whether there was an error apparent on the face of the record of the facts stated in the petitions and affidavit in reply.

5) The Court analyzed the previous judgments cited by both parties and concluded that the law laid down in those cases did not apply to the facts of the present case. It was determined that there was no error apparent on the face of the record that would warrant a review of the order.

6) After weighing the submissions and reviewing the entire record, the Court found that there was no ground made out for a review of the common order. The submissions made were deemed as seeking reappreciation of the entire matter on its merits, which is impermissible in review jurisdiction.

7) Ultimately, the Court dismissed the Review Petitions as there were no grounds calling for a review of the common Order dated 04.11.2022 based on the analysis of the legal precedents and the facts of the case.

---