TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (8) TMI 1124
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing impugned order dated 22.11.2022 passed under section 154 of the Act and the prior approval purportedly granted by Respondent No. 2 before passing such order. B. Without prejudice to the above, issue a writ of and/or order and or directions in the nature of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the reassessment proceedings for AY 2013-14 and all notices/orders in relation thereto. AND C. Issue a writ of and/or order and/or direction in the nature of prohibition commanding Respondents to forebear from giving effect to and/or taking any step whatsoever pursuant to and/or in furtherance of the impugned....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [Act] had come to be assailed. 3. We note that W.P.(C) 13733/2022 came to be ultimately allowed by the Court on 22 September 2022 in the following terms: - "3. Issue notice. Mr. Sanjay Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents revenue, accepts notice. He states that he has no instructions in the present case. He, however, does not dispute that the income alleged to have escaped assessment is less than Rs.50,00,000/-. 4. This Court is of the view that the reopening in the present case is in violation of CBDT Instruction No. 01/2022 dated 11th May, .2022, wherein it has been clearly stated that notices in the cases pertaining to assessment years 2013-14, 2014-15 and 2015-16 cannot be....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ontended that since the correct order could not be uploaded, complete facts could not be brought to the notice of the Court including that the income which had escaped assessment was in fact more than INR 50 lakhs. That review petition, however, came to be dismissed with the Court observing that the so called "corrected order" had neither been issued nor served upon the assessee. In view of the above, the Court proceeded to reject the review petition subject to liberty being reserved to the respondents to take appropriate steps in accordance with law. 6. It was on a perceived interpretation of the aforesaid liberty that the Assessing Officer [AO] sought to invoke the powers conferred by Section 154 of the Act and issued the notices impug....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... effect of reviving the proceedings which had been disposed of by the Appellate Authority by its order dated January 7, 1991. While considering the effect of an interim order staying the operation of the order under challenge, a distinction has to be made between quashing of an order and stay of operation of an order. Quashing of an order results in the restoration of the position as it stood on the date of the passing of the order which has been quashed. The stay of operation of an order does not, however, lead to such a result. It only means that the order which has been stayed would not be operative from the date of the passing of the stay order and it does not mean that the said order has been wiped out from existence. This means that i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sed the order dismissing O.S.A. No. 16 of 1991 filed by the appellant-company against the order of the learned Single Judge dated August 14, 1991. Section 22(1) of the Act could not, therefore, be invoked and there was no impediment in the High Court dealing with the winding up petition filed by the respondents. This is the only question that has been canvassed in Civil Appeal No. 126 of 1992, directed against the order for winding up of the appellant-company. The said appeal, therefore, fails and is liable to be dismissed." 8. We note that the power under Section 154 could have been invoked provided an order capable of rectification existed in the eyes of law. However, once the original reassessment orders came to be quashed, they would....