RAJASTHAN GUM PRIVATE LIMITED vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the impugned order dated 30.08.2024 passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 (for short, ‘the Act’) is in excess of the jurisdiction and authority of law, inasmuch as earlier, for the assessment year 2018-19, not only scrutiny under Section 143(3) was made on 09.03.2021 but later on rectification application was filed under Section 154 of the Act, rectification proceedings were also initiated and another order was passed on 12.07.2021. Again (Uploaded on 27/03/2025 at 05:24:33 PM) (Downloaded on 27/10/2026 at 11:20:36 PM)

On advance copy, learned counsel for the respondent would submit that present case cannot be said to be a case of mere change of opinion but various transactions which could possibly lead to additions, leading to escaped income. Therefore, the power under Section 148A of the Act for re-opening of assessment was initiated and notice was issued to the petitioner, reply was obtained and thereafter, a detailed order has been passed by the competent authority under Section 148A(d) of the Act. Learned counsel for the respondent would further argue that though the order under Section 148A(d) of the Act for reopening of re- assessment was passed way-back on 14.08.2023, the petitioner did not challenge the order and accepted the same and faced the re-assessment proceedings. The petition has been filed after a (Uploaded on 27/03/2025 at 05:24:33 PM) (Downloaded on 27/10/2026 at 11:20:37 PM)

We find that the impugned order reopening of assessment in exercise of power under Section 148A read with Section 148 of the Act was passed way-back on 30.08.2024. In the entire petition there is no cause shown for such delay in filing this petition. The present petition has been filed on 28.01.2025, that means, for almost five months, the petitioner did not challenge the order and participated in the re-assessment proceedings and now in the Civil Writ Petition No.13439/2024, decided on 16.08.2024) had observed that the order of reopening assessment was passed by the respondents in exercise of the power under Section 148A after giving notice to the petitioner and obtained his reply but there was delay in challenging the said order. The petitioner therein did not challenge the reopening of the assessment for a reasonably long period, and therefore, the order attained finality. It was further observed that in the midst of re-assessment proceedings, the order of reopening assessment has been challenged. On those factual premise, this Court observed as follows:- “4. The order reopening assessment was passed by the respondents in exercise of the power under Section 148A of the Income Tax Act. After giving notice to the petitioner and obtaining his reply, impugned order was (Uploaded on 27/03/2025 at 05:24:33 PM) (Downloaded on 27/10/2026 at 11:20:37 PM)

It is quite apparent that while passing order under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act on 06.04.2023, notice of reassessment was also simultaneously issued. The petitioner remained indolent. It is only when the reassessment proceedings were initiated by issuing notice under Section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, the petitioner has approached this Court.

Irrespective of the merits of the case, taking into consideration that the present is not a case where additional tax liability is imposed and only reassessment proceedings have been initiated, on account of delay alone, we are not inclined to exercise our discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to entertain challenge to validity of the order dated 06.04.2023. The issues and grounds, which have been raised in this petition, shall be open to be raised at the stage of reassessment before the assessing authority, who shall consider the same before passing the order of reassessment.”

Irrespective of the merits of the case, the petitioner itself was indolent and the order of re-assessment has not been challenged within a reasonable time but after almost five months during which the assessee-petitioner has participated in the process of re-assessment after reopening, therefore, we are not inclined to grant indulgence on this ground, keeping in view that what is under challenge before us is not an order of assessment but an order of reopening assessment, no additional tax liability has been imposed the issues, which have been raised in this petition, shall be open to be raised at the stage of reassessment before the assessing authority, who shall consider the same before passing the order of re-assessment.

The petition is dismissed.