JUPITER BUILDTECH PVT. LTD. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND 2 OTHERS

WTAX/491/2023HC AllahabadUPHC01087983202306 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 was directed to allow the petitioner to file fresh objections, including jurisdictional ones and those based on other applicable Supreme Court judgments, within four weeks. After the objections are filed, the Assessing Officer must grant an opportunity of hearing and pass orders in accordance with the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Ashish Agarwal and Rajeev Bansal. The assessee is at liberty to pursue all rights and remedies except those concluded by the Supreme Court judgments. The Court also noted that observations made by the Supreme Court 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, Jupiter Buildtech 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 case was heard by a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court. The Supreme Court had previously delivered judgments 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. The present petition was filed in light of these Supreme Court decisions.

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. The Assessee (Petitioner) contended that the reassessment proceedings initiated were subject to the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the aforementioned cases, which dealt with the validity of Section 148 notices issued during a specific period. The Assessee sought to raise objections, including jurisdictional ones, and rely on other Apex Court judgments. The Revenue (Respondent) did not record specific arguments in the judgment, but their counsel was present and heard. The judgment implies the Revenue's action was the order under challenge.

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:133886-DB

Court No. - 3 Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 491 of 2023 Petitioner :- Jupiter Buildtech 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 →