TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (11) TMI 168
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....m Application, has brought to our Notice that it had duly intimated the Assessing Officer about the above Order passed by this Court [in the Writ Petition No. 1428 of 2023] and requested him to drop the re-assessment proceedings. It is contended by the Petitioner that despite intimating the Assessing Officer about the order of this Court, the re-assessment proceedings were not closed/dropped but were kept open. 4. The Counsel of the Applicant/Petitioner further submitted that the Assessing Officer continued to issue notices and ultimately passed the order of the re-assessment on 3rd March 2025 under Section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, making an addition of Rs. 1,18,80,000/-. Consequently, a Notice under Section 156 and notices proposing to levy penalty under Sections 271F, 271(1)(b) and 271(1)(c) were also issued. 5. The Assessing Officer in the said order of re-assessment dated 3rd March 2025 has stated that the re-assessment proceedings were continued because the department had filed Special Leave Petition (CIVIL) Diary No.(s). 56892/2024 against the order dated 9th May 2024 passed by this Court [in the Writ Petition No. 1428 of 2023]. This SLP was disposed of by the H....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....v. ACIT (supra) and that the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (Respondent No. 1) could not issue any Notice under Section 148 in light of the provisions of Section 151A. This aspect was not the subject matter of dispute before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India Vs. Rajeev Bandal (supra). Accordingly, even in the light of the decision of this Court in the case of Hexaware Technologies Limited v. ACIT (supra), the re-assessment proceedings could not continue. 8. The learned Counsel for the Revenue does not dispute that the Hon'ble Apex Court in Rajeev Bansal's case [paragraph 19(f)] records the submissions made by the Ld. Additional Solicitor General of India about the Revenue conceding that for the A.Y. 2015-16, all notices issued on or after 1st April 2021 will have to be dropped as they would not fall for completion during the period prescribed under TOLA. However, it is his submission that in the operative part of the order in Rajeev Bansal's case [paragraph 114 Conclusion], the Hon'ble Apex Court has not made any distinction in respect of reassessment notices issued for the A.Y. 2015-16 and the assessment notices issued for any other assessment year. He, therefore, c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....der Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is quashed and set aside. In case any re-assessment order is passed, the same also will stand quashed. So also, consequential demand notices or penalty notices will also stand quashed and set aside." 11. Meanwhile, the Revenue in such similar matters had filed Special Leave Petitions before the Hon'ble Supreme Court challenging the orders passed by several High Courts on several jurisdictional issues in relation to the re-assessment proceedings for A.Y.2013-14 to A.Y. 2017-18. The Hon'ble Supreme Court grouped together all such SLPs and the lead matter being UOI vs. Rajeev Bansal [Civil Appeal Nos. 8629, 8631 of 2024 & others]. 12. During the course of hearing in Rajeev Bansal (supra), the Ld. Additional Solicitor General of India made various submissions. What is important for our propose is paragraph 19(f) where the Hon'ble Supreme Court recorded the submission of the Ld. Additional Solicitor General of India in respect of A.Y. 2015-16. It reads thus:- "19. Mr. N. Venkataraman, learned Additional Solicitor General of India, made the following submissions on behalf of the Revenue : a. ... b. ... ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... SC 2693/[2024] 167 taxmann. com 70/301 Taxman 238/469 ITR 46 (SC), more particularly, paragraph 19(f) which reads thus:- "19. (f) The Revenue concedes that for the assessment year 2015-2016, all notices issued on or after April 1, 2021 will have to be dropped as they will not fall for completion during the period prescribed under the Taxation and other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020." 5. As the Revenue made a concession in the aforesaid decision that is for the assessment year 2015-2016, all notices issued on or after 1st April, 2021 will have to be dropped as they would not fall for completion during the period prescribed under the taxation and other laws (Relaxation and Amendment of certain Provisions Act, 2020). Nothing further is required to be adjudicated in this matter as the notices so far as the present litigation is concerned is dated 25.6.2021." Similarly, in ITO v. R.K. Build Creations (P) Ltd. [Special Leave Petition (Civil) Dairy No. 59625 of 2024 ], the Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition arising out of a decision rendered by the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in DBC WP No. 14414/2022/R.....