RAJNIGANDHA PROPERTIES LIMITED vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 4/1 AND ORS
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court held that the impugned order dated July 27, 2022, passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was without jurisdiction. The Court noted that the notice issued under Section 148A(b) itself recorded the chargeable income as Rs. 6,75,000/-, which is admittedly below Rs. 50 lakhs. This fact, coupled with the petitioner's argument that reassessment cannot be reopened beyond three years when the escaped income does not exceed Rs. 50 lakhs as per Section 149(1)(a), led to the decision. The revenue's counsel was unable to justify the impugned order. Consequently, the Court quashed the reassessment proceedings. The ratio decidendi is that if the escaped income is below the specified threshold (Rs. 50 lakhs in this case) and the assessment year is beyond the three-year limit, reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 148A are invalid and liable to be quashed.
What were the facts?
The petitioner, Rajnigantha Properties Limited, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated July 27, 2022, passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. This order was based on a notice issued under Section 148A(b) dated May 20, 2022, pertaining to assessment year 2017-18. The petitioner argued that the impugned order was without jurisdiction and in contravention of Section 149(1)(a) of the Act. Specifically, they contended that reassessment proceedings cannot be initiated beyond three years if the escaped income does not exceed Rs. 50 lakhs. The notice under Section 148A(b) itself indicated the chargeable income as Rs. 6,75,000/-, which is below the Rs. 50 lakh threshold.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the impugned order dated July 27, 2022, passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is without jurisdiction and in contravention of Section 149(1)(a) of the Act, considering the escaped income is below Rs. 50 lakhs? Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the reassessment proceeding is without jurisdiction as the escaped income, recorded as Rs. 6,75,000/- in the notice under Section 148A(b), is below the Rs. 50 lakh threshold stipulated in Section 149(1)(a) for reopening assessment beyond three years. They relied on the factual and legal position that the assessing officer refused to drop the proceedings despite this. Revenue's Contention: The revenue's counsel could not justify or convince the Court in defending the impugned order under Section 148A(d).
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 148A,Section 148A(d),Section 148A(b),Section 149(1)(a)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
OD –3 ORDER SHEET WPO/2906/2022 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION ORIGINAL SIDE RAJNIGANDHA PROPERTIES LIMITED VS INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 4/1 AND ORS. BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE MD. NIZAMUDDIN Date: 24th November, 2022. Appearance: Ms. Swapna Das, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Das, Adv. …For the Petitioner Mr. S. Roy Chowdhury, Adv. …For the Revenue The Court: Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. Affidavit of service filed in Court be kept with the records. By this writ petition, petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 27th July, 2022 under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 relating to assessment year 2017-18 on the basis of notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act dated 20th May, 2022 on the ground that the impugned order is without jurisdiction and in contravention of Section 149(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 under which an assessment cannot be reopened beyond three years from the end of the relevant assessment year where the income escaped does not exceed Rs. 50 lakhs and in spite of the factual and legal position, the assessing officer has refused to drop the impugned re- assessment proceeding. On perusal of the notice under Section 148A(b), I find that even in that notice also, the assessing officer has recorded that 2 income chargeable tax is amounting to Rs. 6,75,000/- which is admittedly below Rs. 50 lakhs. Mr. Roy Chowdhury, learned advocate appearing for the respondent Income Tax authority could not justify and convince this Court in defending the impugned order under Section 148A(d) of the Act. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case as appears from record and submission of the parties, this writ petition being WPO 2906 of 2022 is disposed of by quashing the aforesaid impugned re-assessment proceeding. By this order, this writ petition being WPO 2906 of 2022 is disposed of accordingly.
(MD. NIZAMUDDIN, J.) TR/
3
More judgments on Section 148A
- Rajesh Kumar Khandelwal, Jaipur vs ITO Ward 5(1), JaipurITA 21/JPR/2026[2016-17]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2016-17
- Kamleshkumar Somalal Bhatt, Himatnagar vs Income Tax Ofifcer, Ward 1, HimatnagarITA 2130/AHD/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Haresh Sharma, Ahmedabad vs ITO, Ward 5(3)(1), AhmedabadITA 2124/AHD/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Shree Bandharda Seva Sahkari Mandli Ltd… vs Income Tax Officer Ward -4, JunagadhITA 881/RJT/2025[2019-20]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Nitinbhai Nanalal Badani, Rajkot vs CIT (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal…ITA 658/RJT/2025[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Mascot Constructions Co. And Another vs. The Commissioner Of Goods And Services Tax (GST) And AnotherBombay · 22 Oct 2026
- Ankil Jagdishchandra Kholwadwala vs. Union Of INDIA And AnrBombay · 22 Oct 2026
- Fasil Hussain Shah vs. Ut Of J And K Th Commissioner Secretary TO Government Finance Department And OthersJammu and Kashmir and Ladakh · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S. Devkinandan Traders vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S Dixit Medical Agencies vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026