TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (9) TMI 1554
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....se of Hexaware Technologies Limited vs. ACIT [Order dated 3rd May 2024 passed in Writ Petition No. 1778 of 2023]. 4. Following the aforesaid decision in Hexaware Technologies Limited (supra), the present Writ Petition initially came to be allowed and the impugned Notice issued under Section 148 was set aside vide an order of this Court dated 27th January 2026. Since the challenge to the decision of this Court in the case of Hexaware Technologies Limited (supra) was pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, and in order not to burden the Revenue to approach the Supreme Court in every matter, we had, while disposing of the Writ Petition, granted an opportunity to the Revenue to revive the above Writ Petition in the event the decision in Hexaware Technologies Limited (supra) was set aside by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on this issue. 5. It now transpires that the issue in Hexaware Technologies Limited (supra) has been remanded to the High Court for a de novo consideration, especially taking into account the amendment introduced by the Legislature, namely the insertion of Section 147A, with effect from 1st April 2026, having retrospective effect. The Hon'ble Supreme Court also clar....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t vide order dated 23rd July 2024 [Exhibit G] quashed and set aside the order under Section 148A(d) and Notice under Section 148 of the Act. 6.7 Being aggrieved, the Revenue then filed Special Leave Petition against the said order of this Court before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which was disposed of vide order dated 6th January 2025 [Exhibit H3] in terms of the judgment rendered in Union of India & Ors. vs. Rajeev Bansal [Order dated 3rd October 2024 passed in Civil Appeal No. 8629 of 2024] 6.8. Pursuant to the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajeev Bansal (supra), Respondent No. 3 proceeded with the assessment proceedings by issuing an intimation dated 17th December 2025 for completion of assessment under Section 144B of the Act along with a Notice under Section 142(1) of the Act dated 18th December 2025. 6.9 Thereafter, the Respondent issued several other Notices. On 8th January 2026, a Notice [Exhibit I-2] was issued calling upon the Petitioner to show cause as to why net profit at the rate of 8% should not be applied on the alleged contractual receipts of Rs. 3,25,80,250/-, and thereby a sum of Rs. 26,06,420/- be assessed as income under the head "In....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hin the meaning of provision of Section 149(1)(b) of the I.T. Act, 1961." This clearly demonstrates that Respondent No. 1 himself acknowledges that the alleged escaped income was not the entire gross receipts of Rs. 3,25,80,250/-, but only the income/profit element embedded therein; iii. Respondent No. 1, in the Show Cause Notice dated 8th January 2026 and in the final Assessment Order dated 22nd January 2026, has himself estimated the profit element at 8% of the gross receipts as reflected in Form 26AS, and made a final addition of only Rs. 26,06,420/-. Thus, the alleged escaped income, even as quantified by the Assessing Officer himself, is only Rs. 26,06,420/-, which is far below the statutory threshold of Rs. 50,00,000/- prescribed under Section 149(1)(b) of the Act; iv. In the Petitioner's own case for the Assessment Year 2014-15 (i.e., for the subsequent Assessment Year), the Assessing Officer had passed an order dated 28th December 2018 under Section 144 read with Section 147 wherein profit at the rate of 8% was applied on the contractual receipts appearing in Form 26AS. This decision of Respondent No. 1 was upheld by the Commissioner of Income Tax (App....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nsequential notices/orders emanating therefrom. Since the Notice under Section 148 itself stood quashed, there was no question of filing an appeal against the final assessment order which was passed pursuant to the said Notice. 10. We have heard the learned Advocates for the parties and perused the record. The primary issue that arises for our consideration is whether the reassessment proceedings initiated against the Petitioner are barred by limitation in view of the provisions of Section 149(1)(b) of the Act. Section 149(1) as it stood at the relevant time reads as under: "149. (1) No notice under section 148 shall be issued for the relevant assessment year,- (a) if three years have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year, unless the case falls under clause (b); (b) if three years, but not more than ten years, have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year unless the Assessing Officer has in his possession books of accounts or other documents or evidence which reveal that the income chargeable to tax, represented in the form of asset, which has escaped assessment amounts to or is likely to amount to fifty lakh rupees or more f....