PNC BEL JV vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND 2 OTHERS

WTAX/488/2023HC AllahabadUPHC01087874202306 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 the aforementioned matters, and any consequential proceedings, are required to be quashed and set aside. The Assessing Officer is directed to allow the petitioner to file fresh objections. These objections must be disposed of in accordance with the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Ashish Agarwal and Rajeev Bansal. The petitioner is granted liberty to raise new objections, including jurisdictional ones, and rely on other applicable Supreme Court judgments. The objections are to be filed within four weeks. The authority must then provide a hearing opportunity and pass orders as per law. The assessee can pursue all rights and remedies except those concluded by the Ashish Agarwal and Rajeev Bansal judgments. Observations made by the Supreme Court in paragraphs 112, 113, and 114 of Rajeev Bansal regarding orders passed beyond time shall also apply.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, PNC BEL JV, 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 petitioner is aggrieved by the rejection of its objections. The matter is before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. The Supreme Court has previously decided issues concerning the validity of notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, from April 1, 2021, to June 30, 2021, in cases like Union of India vs. Rajeev Bansal and Union of India vs. Ashish Agarwal.

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 argues that the order under challenge should be quashed or set aside, likely based on the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the cited cases, which dealt with the validity of reassessment notices issued during a specific period. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not explicitly record the revenue's contentions. However, the revenue, represented by the Income Tax Officer and other respondents, would have defended the order passed under Section 148A(d).

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:133873-DB

Court No. - 3 Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 488 of 2023 Petitioner :- PNC BEL JV 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 →