ARYA INFRAHOUSING PVT. LTD. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND 2 OTHERS

WTAX/494/2023HC AllahabadUPHC01087976202306 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, and any other consequential proceedings in such matters are required to be quashed and set aside. The Court directed the Assessing Officer to allow the petitioner to file fresh objections. These objections are to be disposed of in accordance with the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Ashish Agarwal and Rajeev Bansal. The petitioner is permitted to raise new objections, including jurisdictional ones, and rely on other applicable Supreme Court judgments. The objections are to be filed within four weeks, after which the authority must grant a hearing and pass orders in accordance with the law. The assessee is also at liberty to pursue all rights and remedies, except for issues already concluded by the Supreme Court in Ashish Agarwal and Rajeev Bansal. The Court also noted that observations made in paragraphs 112, 113, and 114 of Rajeev Bansal regarding orders passed under Section 148A(d) beyond time shall apply.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Arya Infrahousing Pvt. Ltd., 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 challenge was primarily based on the Supreme Court's decisions in Union of India vs. Rajeev Bansal and Union of India vs. Ashish Agarwal, which dealt with the validity of notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, from April 1, 2021, to June 30, 2021. The Assessing Officer had passed the order under Section 148A(d) rejecting the petitioner's objections.

What were the issues?

1. Whether orders passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and consequential proceedings are liable to be quashed in light of the Supreme Court's decisions in Union of India vs. Rajeev Bansal and Union of India vs. Ashish Agarwal concerning the validity of Section 148 notices issued between April 1, 2021, and June 30, 2021. Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the reassessment proceedings initiated were invalid due to the Supreme Court's pronouncements in the aforementioned cases, which had settled the issue regarding the validity of notices issued during a specific period. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record specific arguments from the revenue regarding the validity of the Section 148A(d) order in light of the Supreme Court judgments. However, the revenue was represented by counsel.

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:133892-DB

Court No. - 3 Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 494 of 2023 Petitioner :- Arya Infrahousing Pvt. Ltd. Respondent :- Income Tax Officer And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rahul Agarwal Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,Gaurav Mahajan,Sudarshan Singh 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 196

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 →