2023 (6) TMI 1134

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....77/2023 & CM APPL. 28734/2023 [Application filed on behalf of the petitioner for interim relief] 2. Issue notice. 3. Mr Aseem Chawla, learned senior standing counsel, who appears on behalf of the respondents/revenue, accepts notice. 3. In view of the directions that we propose to issue Mr Chawla says that he does not wish to file a counter-affidavit in the matter, and he will argue the matter based on the record presently available to the court. 4. Therefore, with the consent of the counsel for parties, the writ petition is taken up for hearing and final disposal, at this stage itself. 5. This writ petition is directed against order dated 30.07.2022 passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short, "Act"]. Besi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....cer (AO) to initiate proceedings under Section 147-148 of the Act, were not different from those which have triggered reassessment proceedings for AY 2019-20. 8. As a matter of fact, Mr Jain says that the regular assessment carried out in AY 2018-19 and scrutiny assessment carried out in AY 2020-21, also dealt with the issues which are subject matter of the AY with which the instant writ petition is concerned, i.e., 2019-20. 9. In sum, it is Mr Jain's contention that these aspects were put to the AO by the petitioner in his communication dated 13.06.2022, have not been considered by the AO while passing the order dated 30.07.2022, under Section 148A(d) of the Act. 10. Mr Chawla says, insofar as the first contention advanced by Mr J....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e., that since proceedings on the very same aspects have been dropped in other AYs, that aspect required attention of the AO. 16. Since according to Mr Jain, assessment order has not been passed, the assessing officer will advert to the record of the earlier assessment years before passing the assessment order. It is ordered accordingly. 17. We are conscious of the fact that the rule of res-judicata does not apply, i.e., that each assessment year is different. That being said, if the reasons for reopening are consistently similar or same, the assessing officer needs to apply the principle of consistency before passing the assessment order. [See Radhasaomi Satsang v CIT (1992) 193 ITR 321 (SC)] 18. The assessing officer will thus ac....