TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (11) TMI 252
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Mr. Sidhartha Ray Advocate For Opposite Parties : None JUDGMENT Dr. S. Muralidhar, CJ. 1. The challenge in the present writ petition is to the notices dated 31st March, 2021, 1st April, 2021 and 5th April, 2021 issued by the Income Tax Department (Department) under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act') seeking to reopen the assessment of the Petitioner for the Assessment Year (AY) 2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....se (c) (b) if four years but not more than six years have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year unless the income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment amounts to or is likely to amount to one lakh rupees or more for that year." 4. In the present case, the outer time limit of six years lapsed on 1st April, 2020 whereas the first of the impugned notices was issued only on....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n 148-A of the Act, the Department has contended that the question of complying with the said provision does not arise in view of the extension of the time limit by virtue of the 2020 Act of the initial notice issued on 31st March, 2021. 7. The admitted position is that as far as the notices dated 1st April, 2021 and 5th April, 2021 are concerned, they are bad in law for non-compliance with the m....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er 1st April, 2021 to continue in terms of the amended provisions even while clarifying that the notices issued prior thereto, would have to abide by the provisions as they exist prior to the amendment. 9. In the meanwhile, this Court had in an order dated 24th January, 2022 in W.P.(C) No.20919 of 2021 and batch (M/s. Ambika Iron and Steel Pvt. Ltd. v. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax) quashe....