KAPOOR STEEL INDUSTRIES CORPORATION vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND 2 OTHERS

WTAX/492/2023HC AllahabadUPHC01087971202306 August 20252 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the orders passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in all such matters, including the petitioner's, and any consequential proceedings, are required to be quashed and set aside. This decision is based on the Supreme Court's pronouncements 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 from April 1, 2021, to June 30, 2021. The Court directed the Assessing Officer to allow the petitioner to file fresh objections within four weeks, including jurisdictional ones, and to dispose of these objections in accordance with the law laid down by the Supreme Court. The petitioner is also permitted to rely on other applicable Supreme Court judgments. The Assessing Officer must grant an opportunity of hearing before passing orders. The Court also clarified that observations made in paragraphs 112, 113, and 114 of the Rajeev Bansal judgment regarding orders passed beyond time shall apply.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Kapoor Steel Industries Corporation, 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 assessment year(s) are not explicitly stated. The procedural history involves the petitioner filing objections to the reassessment notice, which were then rejected by the Assessing Officer. The matter came before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad.

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 challenges the validity of the order under Section 148A(d) by seeking its quashing and setting aside, relying on the Supreme Court judgments. The petitioner seeks 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 specific arguments. However, it notes the appearance of counsel for the respondent-Union of India and the Income Tax Department.

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:133889-DB

Court No. - 3 Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 492 of 2023 Petitioner :- Kapoor Steel Industries Corporation 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 validity of notices issued under Section 148 of the Income

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 →