TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (2) TMI 1380
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nsel appearing with learned advocate Mr. Darshan Patel for the petitioner and learned Senior Standing Counsel Ms. Maithili Mehta for the respondent. 2. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned Senior Standing Counsel Ms. Maithili Mehta, waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondent. 3. The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is preferred assailing the correctness and validity of the Notice of Demand dated 22.01.2020 at Rs. 5,02,30,558/- issued under Section 156 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for short) along with the communication dated 23.01.2020. 4. The brief facts leading to filing of the present writ petition are as under: 4.1 The writ petitioner is a Co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ner that such a Notice of Demand was issued without any proceedings initiated for reassessment. 4.5 Being aggrieved by the Demand Notice issued under Section 156 of the Act, issued without any reassessment procedure, the present writ petition is preferred by the petitioner assailing the Demand Notice issued under Section 156 of the Act. 5. Mr. R.K. Patel, learned Senior Advocate appearing with learned advocate Mr. Darshan Patel for the petitioner, made the following submissions: 5.1 It is submitted that there is full and true disclosure by the petitioner during the course of filing of return as well as when original assessment was framed under Section 143(3) and that during the proceedings there is no outstanding demand pertaining ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the Act deserves to be quashed and set aside. 6. Per Contra, learned Senior Standing Counsel Ms. Maithili Mehta appearing for the respondent, relied on the affidavit-inreply filed by the respondent and submitted that there was no need for issuance of notice before making demand under Section 154-O of the Act. It was not disputed by learned Senior Standing Counsel Ms. Mehta that subsequent to framing of assessment, the procedure of reassessment was not undertaken. However, relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of it was submitted that Section 115-O does not demand for issuance of Show-cause Notice and then passing an order Cognizant Technology Solutions (P) Ltd vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Large Tax Pa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nder Section 156 of the Act can be issued when the assessment order under Section 143(3) had 'Nil' demand. Further, Demand Notice under Section 156 of the Act is issued when the assessment order has Nil demand and further proceeding of reassessment under Section 147 are not undertaken. On plain and proper reading of Section 156 of the Act, it is clear that only when tax is due in consequence of any order passed under or in pursuance of the Act, that the Assessing Officer will be expected to serve on the assessee or other person liable, a notice of demand in the prescribed form. In other words, no notice of demand can be issued in the absence of an order passed under or in pursuance of the Act and such an order is required to be in existence....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....which may have been available as per the provisions of the Act. Even if hypothetically it had to be assumed that there was an initiation of reopening of assessment in the present case, then it would have been nothing but mere change of opinion by the respondent. The petitioner was under scrutiny and after calling for information and considering the material available on record, the Assessing Officer had passed the order under Section 143(3) of the Act. That same material is subject matter of demand in notice under Section 156 of the Act. Therefore, even if the reassessment procedure was undertaken on the same issue, then it would have been nothing but a mere change of opinion in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case ....