HYDROCARBONS EDUCATION AND RESEARCH SOCIETY vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ORS.

In view of the directions that we propose to issue Mr. Bhatia says that he does not wish to file a counter-affidavit in the matter, and he will argue the matter based on the record presently available to the court. 4. Therefore, with the consent of the counsel for parties, the writ petition is taken up for hearing and final disposal, at this stage itself. 5. This writ petition is directed against order dated 30.07.2022 passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short, “Act”]. Besides this, challenge is also laid to the consequential notice dated 31.07.2022 issued under Section 148 of the Act. 5.1 In addition, the petitioner has also assailed the notice dated 07.06.2021 issued under Section 148 of the Act and the intimation letter dated 23.05.2022, which is, in effect, a notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act. 6. Mr Rohit Jain, learned counsel who appears on behalf of the petitioner, makes two broad submissions in support of the petitioner’s case. (i) First, the notice dated 23.05.2022 issued under Section 148A(b) of the Act is unsustainable in law. According to Mr Jain, in the said notice there is a reference to the decision of the Supreme Court rendered in Union of India vs Ashish Aggarwal, (2022) 444 ITR 1 (SC). It is Mr Jain’s contention that limitation for the Assessment Year (AY) in issue, i.e., AY 2019-20, would have expired, at the relevant time, only on 31.03.2023. Therefore, the respondents/revenue could not have taken recourse to the leeway granted via the aforementioned decision rendered by the Supreme Court. (ii) Second, the genesis of the reassessment triggered against the petitioner is a survey which was conducted on 22.12.2020 qua the petitioner Digitally Signed By:TARUN RANA Signing Date:22.06.2023 17:16:38 Signature Not Verified

We have heard learned counsel for the parties. We are in agreement with Mr Bhatia that the notice dated 23.05.2022 issued under Section 148A(b) of the Act cannot be declared as being untenable in law, since even according to Mr. Jain, the limitation qua AY 2019-20 would have expired only on 31.03.2023. 13. Merely because there is a reference to the judgment of Supreme Court in Ashish Aggarwal’s case, which according to Mr Jain would not apply qua the AY in issue, it would not render the notice untenable, as it is common case of counsel for parties that after 01.04.2021, notices could have been issued only under the new regime. 14. Mr Jain cannot but accept that the notice dated 23.05.2022 has been issued under the new regime, i.e., under Section 148A(b) of the Act. 15. However, Mr Jain’s argument carry weight insofar as the second aspect is concerned, i.e., that since proceedings on the very same aspects have been dropped in for the past AYs, that aspect required attention of the assessing officer. 16. Since according to Mr Jain, assessment order has not been passed, it would be best, if the AO were to advert to the record of the earlier assessment years before passing the assessment order. It is ordered accordingly. 17. We are conscious of the fact that the rule of res-judicata does not apply, i.e., that each AY is different. That being said, if the reasons for reopening are consistently similar or same, the AO needs to apply the principle of consistency, before passing the assessment order. [See Radhasaomi Satsang v CIT (1992) 193 ITR 321 (SC)] Digitally Signed By:TARUN RANA Signing Date:22.06.2023 17:16:38 Signature Not Verified

Mr Bhatia, on instructions, states that personal hearing has already been granted to the authorised representative of the petitioner. 18.1 The AO will pass a speaking assessment order wherein the aforementioned aspect would be dealt with, i.e., that assertion that assessments have been completed for the AYs 2018-19 and 2020-21, involving aspects which are subject matter of the AY in issue. 19. The writ petition is disposed of, in the aforesaid terms. 20. Consequently, the pending application shall stand closed. 21. Parties will act based on the digitally signed copy of the order.