SATYA MADHAV REAL ESTATE PRIVATE LIMITED vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1 (3) (1) MATHURA AND 2 OTHERS

WTAX/489/2023HC AllahabadUPHC01087878202306 August 20252 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that orders passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in all such matters, along with any consequential proceedings, were required to be quashed and set aside. The Court directed the Assessing Officer to allow the petitioner to file fresh objections, including jurisdictional ones, and to dispose of these objections in accordance with the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Ashish Agarwal and Rajeev Bansal. The petitioner was granted four weeks to file these objections and was assured an opportunity of hearing. The Court clarified that the assessee could pursue all rights and remedies except those concluded by the Supreme Court judgments. It also noted that the observations made by the Supreme Court in paragraphs 112, 113, and 114 of Rajeev Bansal regarding orders passed under Section 148A(d) beyond time would apply.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Satya Madhav Real Estate Private Limited, filed a writ petition challenging an order passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which rejected its objections to the initiation of reassessment proceedings under Section 148. The High Court noted that the Supreme Court had already decided the issue concerning the validity of notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, from April 1, 2021, to June 30, 2021, in the cases of Union of India vs. Rajeev Bansal and Union of India vs. Ashish Agarwal. The Court was therefore considering the present petition in light of these Supreme Court judgments.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the order passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, rejecting the petitioner's objections to reassessment proceedings, is valid in light of the Supreme Court's decisions in Union of India vs. Rajeev Bansal and Union of India vs. Ashish Agarwal. Assessee's Contentions: The petitioner, Satya Madhav Real Estate Private Limited, implicitly argued that the reassessment proceedings initiated against it were flawed, as evidenced by their challenge to the order rejecting their objections. They relied on the Supreme Court's pronouncements in Ashish Agarwal and Rajeev Bansal, which dealt with the validity of Section 148 notices issued during a specific period. Revenue's Contentions: The revenue, represented by the Income Tax Officer and other counsel, defended the order passed under Section 148A(d). While not explicitly detailed, their participation implies an assertion of the validity of the reassessment proceedings and the order rejecting the petitioner's objections.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148A,Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:133878-DB

Court No. - 3 Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 489 of 2023 Petitioner :- Satya Madhav Real Estate Private Limited Respondent :- Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1 (3) (1) Mathura And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rahul Agarwal Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,Gaurav Mahajan,Gopal Verma Hon'ble Shekhar B. Saraf,J. Hon'ble Praveen Kumar Giri,J.

1.

Heard Sri Rahul Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner; Sri Navin Chandra Gupta, Sri Gopal Verma & Sri Sudarshan Singh, learned counsel for the respondent-Union of India and learned validity of notices issued under

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 148A

All 3,543 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →