Just a moment...
Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the notice issued under Section 148 and the order passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income-tax Act were barred by limitation and therefore invalid.
Analysis: The appeal turned on the timeline governing reassessment after the Supreme Court's directions in Ashish Agarwal. The original notice was treated as a show-cause notice under Section 148A(b), the assessee responded within the permitted time, and the consequential order under Section 148A(d) had to be passed within the period prescribed by the statutory regime then applicable. On the facts, the notice and the order were issued after expiry of the permissible period, making the reassessment action time-barred. Since the limitation issue was , the separate objection regarding approval by the specified authority was not adjudicated.
Conclusion: The notice under Section 148 and the order under Section 148A(d) were barred by limitation and were liable to be set aside.
Final Conclusion: The reassessment proceedings could not be sustained because the jurisdictional steps taken for reopening were beyond the permissible statutory time limit.
Ratio Decidendi: A reassessment notice and the consequential order are invalid when issued beyond the statutory limitation period governing reopening proceedings.