RAJEEV YADAV vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX AND 2 OTHERS

WTAX/485/2023HC AllahabadUPHC01087877202306 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 consequential proceedings in all such matters are required to be quashed and set aside. The Assessing Officer is directed to allow the petitioner to file objections once again. 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 law. The assessee is also at liberty to pursue all rights and remedies, except for issues already concluded by the Supreme Court in the aforementioned cases. The Court also clarified 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, Rajeev Yadav, 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 case involves the validity of notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the period from April 1, 2021, to June 30, 2021. The Supreme Court had previously ruled on the validity of such notices in the cases of Union of India vs. Rajeev Bansal and Union of India vs. Ashish Agarwal. The present petition seeks relief in light of these Supreme Court pronouncements.

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 primarily relies on the Supreme Court judgments in Ashish Agarwal and Rajeev Bansal, implying that the proceedings initiated against him should be considered in light of these rulings. The petitioner seeks an opportunity to file fresh objections, including jurisdictional ones, and rely on other Apex Court judgments. Revenue's Contention: The revenue, represented by the Assistant Commissioner Income Tax and others, is defending the order passed under Section 148A(d). Their arguments would be based on the validity of the reassessment proceedings as per the extant provisions and the facts of the case, subject to the Supreme Court's pronouncements.

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:133826-DB Court No. - 3 Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 485 of 2023 Petitioner :- Rajeev Yadav Respondent :- Assistant Commissioner Income Tax 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 fro

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 →