Reassessment sanction and writ delay: limited interim protection may still issue where non-application of mind is prima facie suspected.

Delay in approaching the HC was treated as relevant to interim relief but not as an absolute bar to limited protection in a writ challenge to reassessment proceedings. The Court also noted that sanction for issue of notice under Section 148 must show genuine application of mind to the assessee's response and surrounding material; apparent mismatch in the sanction record raised serious doubt, though incomplete records prevented a final finding of invalidity at that stage. Limited interim protection was therefore granted to enable a response to the variation notice, while the reassessment proceedings were otherwise allowed to continue.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the delay in filing the writ petition disentitled the petitioner from interim relief against the reassessment proceedings. (ii) Whether the sanction granted for issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 showed non-application of mind so as to warrant stay of further proceedings.

Issue (i): Whether the delay in filing the writ petition disentitled the petitioner from interim relief against the reassessment proceedings.

Analysis: The challenge was to orders and notices issued in relation to reassessment for assessment year 2017-18. Although the petitioner approached the Court after a considerable interval, the Court treated the delay as a relevant factor only for interim relief and not as a complete bar to maintainability. The proceedings were still at a stage where the assessment order had not been passed, and the petitioner had demonstrated a prima facie case to some extent.

Conclusion: The delay did not disentitle the petitioner from seeking limited interim protection.

Issue (ii): Whether the sanction granted for issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 showed non-application of mind so as to warrant stay of further proceedings.

Analysis: The reassessment action was founded on alleged non-compliance with Section 13A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and on information suggesting escapement of income. The Court noted that the petitioner's return reflected a loss and that this aspect ought to have been considered by the sanctioning authority. The sanction order also recorded that no reply had been received from the assessee, whereas the record indicated a response to the notice under Section 148A(b). This raised serious doubt about the application of mind, but the complete records were not before the Court and the Court declined to hold at that stage that the approval was unsustainable in law.

Conclusion: A serious doubt arose regarding the sanction order, but no final finding of invalidity was recorded at the interim stage.

Final Conclusion: The petitioner was granted limited interim protection to file a response to the variation notice, while the reassessment proceedings were otherwise permitted to continue without an immediate stay.

Ratio Decidendi: At the interim stage, delay in approaching the Court does not by itself bar relief, and a sanction order for reassessment must reflect real consideration of the assessee's response and surrounding material; however, absent complete records, the Court may confine itself to limited protection rather than annul the proceedings.

---