AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (1) TMI 294
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 1) That the Learned CIT(Appeals) erred in setting aside the Reassessment Order dated 31.03.2022 passed u/s 144 r/w section 147 of the Act to the file of Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication when the said Reassessment Order is an invalid Order since it was passed in pursuance of the Reopening Notice dated 30.06.2021 issued u/s 148 of the Reopening provisions of Sections 147 to 151 as they stood before their substitution with new Reopening Provisions from 01.04.2021 by Finance Act, 2021. 2) That the since Assessment was reopened vide Notice issued u/s 148 dated 30.06.2021 of the Reopening provisions of Section 147 to 151 as they stood before 01.04.2021 and the provisions of these sections were substituted with new provi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....me of Rs. 39,89,130/-. The return of the assessee was processed under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act"). Subsequently, a search action under section 132 of the Act was conducted in the case of the assessee on 02.05.2018, and therefore the case of the assessee was "centralized". Assessment was thereafter framed by the Learned Assessing Officer ("Ld. AO") on 24.04.2021 under section 143(3) read with section 153A of the Act determining total income of the assessee at Rs. 39,89,130/-. Later, the case of the assessee was reopened and notice under section 148 of the Act (old regime) was issued to the assessee on 30.06.2021. In response to the said notice, the assessee did not file a return of income. Accordingly, reassessment....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sh Agarwal procedure and passed a second reassessment order on 16.03.2023, the earlier reassessment order dated 31.03.2022 becomes non est, invalid and void ab initio. In this regard, reliance was placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Mittal Pigments Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT(A) & Ors. 468 ITR 342, wherein under identical circumstances, the Hon'ble High Court held that reassessment orders passed under the old regime (based on old 148 notices) prior to the Ashish Agarwal directions are invalid and infructuous. Accordingly, it was prayed that the impugned order dated 31.03.2022 be declared void and quashed. 6. Per contra, the Learned Departmental Representative ("Ld. DR") supported the orders of the lowe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Ashish Agarwal^2, dated May 4, 2022, the notice under section 148 of the Act was required to be treated as notice under section 148A(b) of the Act and further proceedings were required to be drawn complying with the mandate of section 148A of the Act, introduced after the amendment effective from April 1, 2021. The order under section 148A(d) of the Act dated July 26, 2022 clearly records that in view of the judgment of hon'ble Supreme Court, no scrutiny assessment could be made on the basis of show-cause notice, hence scrutiny assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer has become infructuous. In paragraph 6(ii) of the order passed under section 148A(d) of the Act, it ha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hat the predeposit amount, if any, made by the petitioner while filing appeal against the order dated March 24, 2022 is required to be refunded forthwith to the petitioner. The impugned demand notice dated March 24, 2022 is also rendered ineffective and inoperative in law. 9. This petition is accordingly partly allowed declaring the scrutiny assessment order dated March 24, 2022 as also the demand notice dated March 24, 2022 ineffective and inoperative in law. The predeposit amount, if any, shall be refunded to the petitioner. 10. We may, however, hasten to add that we have not interfered with the order dated July 26, 2022 passed in exercise of powers under section 148A(d) of the Act. In case the petitioner is aggrieved by....