ANUJ GOYAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND 2 OTHERS

WTAX/486/2023HC AllahabadUPHC01087880202306 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, and any consequential proceedings, are required to be quashed and set aside. The Assessing Officer was directed 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 liberty to raise new objections and rely on other applicable Supreme Court judgments. The authority was directed to grant an opportunity of hearing and pass orders in accordance with law. The assessee was also given liberty to pursue all rights and remedies, except those concluded by the Supreme Court judgments. The Court also made it clear that observations made by the Supreme Court in paragraphs 112, 113, and 114 of Rajeev Bansal regarding orders passed beyond time shall apply.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Anuj Goyal, filed a writ petition challenging an order passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which rejected his objections to the initiation of reassessment proceedings under Section 148. The petitioner sought to quash this order and any consequential proceedings. The High Court noted that the Supreme Court had already decided the issue regarding the validity of notices issued under Section 148 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 present petition was filed before the Allahabad High Court.

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 Contention: The petitioner implicitly argued for the quashing of the impugned order, seeking to reopen the reassessment proceedings based on the Supreme Court's pronouncements. The petitioner sought liberty to file fresh objections, including jurisdictional ones, and rely on other Apex Court judgments. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not explicitly record the revenue's arguments. However, by implication, the revenue would have supported the validity of the order passed under Section 148A(d) and opposed the petitioner's plea for quashing.

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:133850-DB

Court No. - 3 Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 486 of 2023 Petitioner :- Anuj Goyal Respondent :- Income Tax Officer 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 1961 from 1st April, 202

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 →