RAJEEV YADAV vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX AND 2 OTHERS

WTAX/487/2023HC AllahabadUPHC01087886202306 August 20252 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The Allahabad High Court held that orders passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in matters concerning reassessment notices issued between April 1, 2021, and June 30, 2021, are required to be quashed and set aside. This decision is based on the Supreme Court's judgments in Union of India vs. Rajeev Bansal and Union of India vs. Ashish Agarwal, which have settled the issue of the validity of such notices. The court directed the Assessing Officer to allow the petitioner to file fresh objections, including jurisdictional ones, within four weeks. The Assessing Officer must then provide an opportunity for a hearing and pass orders in accordance with the law laid down by the Supreme Court. The assessee is permitted to pursue all legal remedies except those already concluded by the Supreme Court's rulings. The court also noted that observations made by the Supreme Court in paragraphs 112, 113, and 114 of the Rajeev Bansal judgment regarding orders passed beyond time would 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, during the period from April 1, 2021, to June 30, 2021. The Supreme Court had previously decided similar issues in the cases of 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 primarily challenged the order passed under Section 148A(d), implying its invalidity based on the Supreme Court's pronouncements. The petitioner sought to raise fresh objections, including jurisdictional ones. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not explicitly record the revenue's arguments. However, the court's directions suggest that the revenue was bound by the Supreme Court's decisions.

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:133857-DB Court No. - 3 Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 487 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 from

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 →