M.S.SAJITHA MOITHEEN, vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE (NAFAC),
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court held that the reopening of assessment ordered by the Assessing Authority cannot be said to be without jurisdiction. The court reasoned that the Assessing Authority, after considering the objections raised by the appellant, had formed an opinion that the appellant's income had escaped assessment, thereby necessitating the reopening of the assessment for the assessment year 2019-2020. The court found no merit in the writ appeal, stating that the appellant was free to raise all contentions in response to the notice issued under Section 148. The High Court dismissed the appeal but extended the time granted by the learned Single Judge for filing the response and return by one month from the date of the judgment.
What were the facts?
The appellant, an assessee under the Income Tax Act, 1961, received a notice under Section 148A of the Act from the Income Tax Officer. This notice was based on information indicating that income amounting to ₹43,45,000 had escaped assessment. The appellant was asked to show cause why a notice under Section 148 of the Act should not be issued. After considering the appellant's reply and supporting documents, the Assessing Officer passed an order under Section 148A(d) holding that the assessment for the year 2019-20 required reopening under Section 147. Subsequently, a notice under Section 148 was issued. The appellant challenged these notices before the High Court, which dismissed the writ petition, granting fifteen days to file a response to the Section 148 notice and file a return. The present appeal challenges this High Court judgment.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the reopening of assessment under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, based on the order passed under Section 148A(d) is without jurisdiction. Assessee's contention: The appellant argued that the reopening of assessment was without jurisdiction and that she had rushed to the court as she had no other remedy. Revenue's contention: The revenue contended that the Assessing Authority, after considering the objections, formed an opinion that income had escaped assessment, and therefore, the reopening was justified. They argued that the appellant should have availed the remedy of responding to the notice under Section 148.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
J U D G M E N T Dr. Kauser Edappagath, J.
This writ appeal has been filed challenging the judgment of the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No.13034/2023 dated 24/11/2023. 2. The appellant is an assessee under the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act'). She was issued with Ext.P1 notice u/s 148A of the Act. The said notice was issued based on the relevant information received by the Assessing Officer that income in respect of the transaction of the appellant for `43,45,000/- had escaped the assessment. The appellant was required to show cause why a notice u/s 148 of the Act should not be issued to her. The appellant gave reply to the show cause notice. She also produced documents in support of her defence. After considering the objections, the 2nd respondent passed Ext.P3 order u/s 148A(d) of the Act, holding that the assessment for 2019-20 requires reopening under section 147. Pursuant to Ext.P3 order, the appellant was issued with Ext.P4 notice u/s 148 of the Act. The appellant challenged Exts.P3 and P4 before the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition granting the appellant fifteen days' time to file response to Ext.P4 notice and to file return as directed. It is challenging the said judgment; the appellant is before us.
We have heard Smt. Latha Anand, the learned counsel for the appellant and Sri.P.R.Ajithkumar, the learned standing counsel for the respondents. The Assessing Authority, after considering the objections given by the appellant, formed an opinion that the income of the appellant had escaped assessment and therefore the assessment order for the assessment year 2019-2020 requires to be reopened. It cannot be said that the reopening of the assessment ordered by the Assessing Authority is without jurisdiction. The appellant is free to take up all the contentions in response to Ext.P4 notice. Instead of opting for that remedy, the appellant has rushed to this court. We find no merit in the writ appeal, and it is dismissed accordingly. However, fifteen days' time granted by the learned Single Judge to file response to Ext.P4 notice and to file return is extended for a period of one month from today. DR. A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE
DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH JUDGE Rp
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 →- Sukant Kumar vs. Union Of INDIA And 6 OthersAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S New Sana Brick Field vs. Union Of INDIA And 4 OthersAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S Shivam Tiles House vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- Vinay Singh vs. Union Of INDIAAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S Aaradhyam Infrabuilders PVT LTD vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
