TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (9) TMI 657
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e A.Y. 2014-15." 2. The challenge is essentially to the reassessment action in terms of notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ["Act"] dated 19.07.2022 and which pertains to the assessment year ["AY"] 2014-15. For the purpose of the instant writ petition, we deem it apposite to take note of the following essential facts:- 3. Petitioner filed his return for the AY 2014-15 on 30.09.2014, declaring total income of Rs. 2,29,80,740/-. The return was processed under Section 143 (3) of the Income Tax Act. The case was assessed under Section 143 (3) of the I.T. Act, 1961 at returned income of Rs. 2,29,80,740/- on 30.12.2016. 4. On the basis of an information received from the Investigation Wing, Mumbai that the assessee was the beneficiary of Rs. 3.07 crores through misusing the platform of NSEL Exchange by unscrupulous broker during the year under consideration, the case was reopened under Section 147 after obtaining the necessary approval from the concerned authority. Accordingly, notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act was issued on 31.03.2021 for the AY 2014-15 after recording the reasons that the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment as per the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....A (b) dated 02.06.2022, order under Section 148-A(d) and notice under Section 148 of the Act dated 19.07.2022 were in compliance with the orders of the Supreme Court. 9. Per contra, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that formation of belief that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment of Rs. 3.07 crores has attained finality by virtue of an order dated 30.03.2022 under Section 147 read with Section 144B of the Act and therefore the formation of belief for issuance of SCN under Section 148-A (b) of the Act that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment on the same set of reasons without any change in facts and figures for re-initiation of reassessment proceeding vide impugned notice dated 19.07.2022 is invalid and void ab initio. Such initiation of reassessment proceedings will tantamount to double addition which is not permissible under the law. It has been further submitted that if the respondents had treated notice under Section 148 of the Act dated 31.03.2021 as served on 01.04.2021 and the reassessment proceedings were still pending, only in that eventuality, the present case would have got covered by the judgment of the Apex Court. 10. Notice....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ficers concerned to hold any enquiry, if required. 28.4. The assessing officers shall thereafter pass orders in terms of Section 148-A(d) in respect of each of the assessees concerned; Thereafter after following the procedure as required under Section 148-A may issue notice under Section 148 (as substituted). 28.5. All defences which may be available to the assessees including those available under Section 149 of the IT Act and all rights and contentions which may be available to the assessees concerned and Revenue under the Finance Act, 2021 and in law shall continue to be available. The assessing officers shall thereafter pass orders in terms of Section 148-A(d) in respect of each of the assessees concerned; Thereafter after following the procedure as required under Section 148-A may issue notice under Section 148 (as substituted). 29. The present order shall be applicable PAN INDIA and all judgments and orders passed by the different High Courts on the issue and under which similar notices which were issued after 1-4-2021 issued under Section 148 of the Act are set aside and shall be governed by the present order and shall stand modified to the aforesaid extent. The presen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... was primarily concerned with the validity of various notices which had been promulgated and proceedings drawn in accordance with the statutory procedure which stood in place prior to 01 April 2021. It also becomes pertinent to note that the decision rendered by our Court in Man Mohan Kohli perhaps constituted the solitary exception in the sense of having left a window open to the respondents to draw proceedings afresh. A majority of the High Courts', however, do not appear to have made such a provision or provide the Revenue with a right of recourse. The Supreme Court was thus faced with a peculiar and an unprecedented situation where the Revenue was rendered remediless to assess escaped income even though material may have merited such an action being pursued solely on account of a misinterpretation of the correct legal position. It was these factors which clearly appear to have weighed upon the Supreme Court to mould and sculpt a procedure which would strike a just balance between competing interests. 24. In order to carve out an equitable solution which would redress the deadlock, the Supreme Court invoked its powers conferred by Article 142 of the Constitution and ordained t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... construed and deemed to have been issued under Section 148A. Ashish Agarwal proceeded further to observe that the Revenue should have been "permitted to proceed further with the reassessment proceedings as per the substituted provisions......". Our view of the judgement being confined to proceedings at the stage of notice is further fortified from the Supreme Court providing in para 8 of the report that "The respective impugned Section 148 notices issued to the respective assessees shall be deemed to have been issued under section 148A of the Income Tax Act as substituted by Finance Act, 2021 and treated to be show cause notices in terms of Section 148A (b)." As would be manifest from the aforesaid extract, the emphasis clearly was on the notices which formed the subject matter of challenge before various High Courts' and the aim of the Supreme Court being to salvage the process of reassessment. This is further evident from the Supreme Court observing that the AO would thereafter proceed to pass orders referable to Section 148A(d). We consequently find ourselves unable to construe Ashish Agarwal as an edict which required completed assessments to be invalidated and reopened. Ashis....