GANESHAY OVERSEAS INDUSTRIES LTD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND ANR

Facts

The petitioner, Ganeshay Overseas Industries Ltd., filed a writ petition before the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh. The petition challenged a notice dated 31.03.2021, dispatched on or after 01.04.2021, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2013-14. The respondents were the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Ludhiana, and another. The revenue, through its counsel, conceded that the impugned notice should be treated as a notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act, in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India vs. Ashish Agarwal.

Held

The High Court noted the concession made by the learned counsel for the revenue. The revenue agreed that in terms of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Union of India and others vs. Ashish Agarwal (2023) 1 SCC 617, the impugned notice dated 31.03.2021, dispatched to the petitioner on or after 01.04.2021, for the assessment year 2013-14, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, should be treated as a notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act. This concession satisfied the petitioner's counsel. Consequently, the petition was disposed of with a direction to the respondent-revenue to proceed from the stage of the notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act, following the prescribed procedure. The petitioner was also granted liberty to raise all available pleas and defenses during these proceedings. No issue was left undecided.

Key Issues

1. Whether the notice dated 31.03.2021, dispatched to the petitioner on or after 01.04.2021, for assessment year 2013-14, under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, should be treated as a notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act, in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India and others vs. Ashish Agarwal (2023) 1 SCC 617? The revenue conceded that the notice should be treated as a notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act, following the Supreme Court's ruling. The petitioner's counsel was satisfied with this concession.