JUPITER BUILDTECH PRIVATE LIMITED vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND 2 OTHERS

WTAX/497/2023HC AllahabadUPHC01087975202306 August 20252 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The Tribunal held that the orders passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in all such matters, including the present one, 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 petitioner was to file these objections within four weeks, and the authority was to grant a hearing and pass orders accordingly. The Tribunal also clarified that the assessee is at liberty to pursue all rights and remedies, except for issues concluded by the judgments of Ashish Agarwal and Rajeev Bansal. Further, for orders passed under Section 148A(d) beyond time, the observations made by the Supreme Court in paragraphs 112, 113, and 114 of Rajeev Bansal were to apply. The ratio decidendi is that reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 148 based on notices issued between April 1, 2021, and June 30, 2021, are subject to the principles laid down in Ashish Agarwal and Rajeev Bansal, and if found to be invalid, fresh opportunities for filing objections must be provided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Jupiter Buildtech 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 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 assessment year(s) are not explicitly stated. The procedural history involves the petitioner filing objections to the reassessment proceedings, which were rejected by the impugned order.

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 the initiation of 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 argued that the reassessment proceedings were initiated based on notices that are rendered invalid by the Supreme Court's judgments in Ashish Agarwal and Rajeev Bansal. They sought to quash the order passed under Section 148A(d) and be allowed to file fresh objections. Revenue's Contentions: The revenue, represented by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and others, did not explicitly record arguments in the judgment. However, their presence and the context imply they defended the validity of the reassessment proceedings and 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:133893-DB

Court No. - 3 Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 497 of 2023 Petitioner :- Jupiter Buildtech Private Limited Respondent :- Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax 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 validity of notices issued under Section 14

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 →