DINESH SINGLA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND ANR
What did the High Court hold?
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 148 were not sustainable. The "reasons to believe" must be based on tangible material available at the time of reopening and cannot be based on a personal opinion or material that may be supplied subsequently. The Court referred to the Supreme Court judgment in The Income-Tax Officer vs Lakhmani Mewal Das, which stated that reasons to believe must appear on the face of the notice or be available on record. The Court found that the assessment proceedings completed in March 2016 did not warrant any interference or re-opening. The proceedings initiated vide notice dated 20.03.2020 were contrary to law and thus unsustainable. On merits, the Tribunal found that the agricultural land purchased by the petitioner was not a capital asset as defined under Section 2(14)(iii)(b) of the Act because it was beyond the municipal limits and agricultural in nature. Therefore, no capital gain was liable to be taxed. The writ petition was allowed, and the notice dated 20.03.2020, the orders dated 08.09.2021 and 22.09.2021, and the demand notice dated 29.09.2021 were quashed.
What were the facts?
The petitioner, Dinesh Singla, filed a writ petition challenging a notice dated 20.03.2020 under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act), a draft assessment order dated 08.09.2021 under Section 144 read with Section 147, and the final assessment order dated 22.09.2021, which rejected his objections. The petitioner had purchased agricultural land in 2012. His assessment for Assessment Year 2013-14 was completed under Section 143(3) in March 2016, with no additions. The notice under Section 148 alleged that income chargeable for AY 2013-14 had escaped assessment due to the sale of this land, treating it as an adventure in the nature of trade and proposing additions for short-term capital gain and unexplained investment. The petitioner contended that the land was agricultural and not a capital asset, and that the reassessment proceedings were initiated without valid reasons.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, were validly based on "reasons to believe" that income had escaped assessment, considering the prior final assessment under Section 143(3) for AY 2013-14. Assessee's Contention: The reassessment proceedings were initiated without valid reasons. The Assessing Officer (AO) could not have initiated proceedings under Section 148 based on additional reasons or material that may be supplied subsequently. The AO's opinion was not based on tangible material and was contrary to the earlier assessment. Reliance was placed on judgments in Income-Tax Officer vs Lakhmani Mewal Das, Emirates Shipping Line, FZE vs Assistant Director of Income-Tax, and Vanita Sanjeev Anand vs Income Tax Officer. Revenue's Contention: The petition would not lie as the final assessment order dated 29.09.2021 was appealable before the Commissioner (Appeals). The respondents also challenged the final assessment order dated 22.09.2021, which was uploaded on the portal. The AO had reasons to believe that income had escaped assessment due to non-disclosure of income and non-genuineness of investment. 2. Whether the agricultural land purchased by the petitioner constituted a capital asset within the meaning of Section 2(14)(iii)(b) of the Act, and if its sale resulted in capital gains or was an adventure in the nature of trade.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 148,Section 147,Section 144,Section 143(3),Section 2(14)(iii)(b)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
order/judgment
CWP No filed seeking case finally n 3. case are as un The petitione three brother 14.05.2012. company on eligible to tax either in the was agricult verification r Income Tax assessment p under Sectio made on acc was served w wherein it w chargeable fo Section 147 Section 147 petitioner as The land was a registered p through him. the extent of “the source o. 19667 of 2021 g apology by the Revenue. Be th now.
Brief facts which required to be nder:- er had purchased 92 kanals 2 m rs, namely, Manjit Singh, Karn He further transferred the sam n 12.06.2012. As the land was x as it was not a capital asset, th hands of the seller or with the p tural was verified by the IT report dated 30.03.2015, which w x, Intelligence and Criminal proceedings were completed and on 143 (3) of the Act on Marc count of any undisclosed income with a notice dated 20.03.2020 was stated that there had been rea or A.Y. 2013-14 had escaped as of the Act. The order was pass of the Act giving out the reason power of attorney holder. s sold by Manjit Singh to petitio power of attorney and the other t . On the basis of said reasons, i f Rs. 19,34,10,000/- had escaped and genuineness of investmen -2- hat as it may, we have heard the e noticed for adjudication of this marlas of agricultural land from nail Singh and Jarnail Singh on me to DSS Mega City projects s agricultural land, it was not herefore, no income was taxable petitioner. The fact that the land TO Intelligence, Karnal in its was forwarded to the Director of Investigation. The petitioner’s d finalized for the year 2013-14 h, 2016 and no additions were e of capital gain. The petitioner 0 under Section 148 of the Act asons to believe that the income ssessment within the meaning of ed under Section 144 read with ns of the sale of the land by the oner- Dinesh Singla allegedly by two brothers also sold their land it was stated that the income to d assessment. It was stated that nt made as well as short term e s m n s t e d s f s 4 e r t e f h e y d o t m VARINDER SINGH 2024.09.03 10:14 order/judgment
CWP No capital gain failed to sub from disclos was prepare 24,69,09,300 and Rs.3,75,7 The petition submitted hi property sold that he was submitted th have been iss statement wh tangible ma assailing the within the m Panchkula an the agricultu 2(14)(iii)(b) agricultural l 4. final assessm amending th believe to ini document wh was already of the Act. o. 19667 of 2021 received by the assesee remai bmit the supporting evidence as ed sources of income” and acco ed rounding off the total inco 0/- by adding the short term cap 75,000/- as unexplained investm ner submitted his objections an is complete bank statements w d and purchased during the relev engaged in the business of sale at merely because of change of sued. It was also stated that the hich was part of the A.O’s r terial. The petitioner thereafte said proceedings. It has been sub municipal limits of Panchkula nd 20 kms far from municipal ural land was not a capital asset of the Act and no capital gain and. Learned counsel for the petitio ment order, which was allowed to he writ petition. It was submitte itiate proceedings under Section hich had come on record as all th filed at the time of final assessm -3- ined unexplained. The assessee s to whether this investment is ordingly draft assessment order ome of the petitioner as Rs. pital gain of Rs. 15,58,35,000/- ment. nd stated that he had already with narrations and details of vant financial year. It was stated e and purchase of property and f opinion fresh notice could not amount was part of the financial record and there was no fresh er preferred the writ petition bmitted that the land did not fall a and was 15 kms far from limits of Naraingarh, therefore, t within the meaning of Section would arise on the sale of the oner has further challenged the o be challenged by this Court by ed that there was no reason to 148 of the Act and there was no he bank statements and material ment done under Section 143 (3) e s r . - y f d d t l h n l m , n e e y o o l ) VARINDER SINGH 2024.09.03 10:14 order/judgment
CWP No 5. assessment o investment a of the reply, wherein the the reasons r head capital in the nature nor in the fin purchase and submitted tha not based on therein for in 6. and others v in Emirates (2012) 349 I (2020) 422 I any new ma been made an been conside 7. judgment of Assistant Co another 202 could not hav o. 19667 of 2021 It was further submitted that the order dated 08.09.2021 related to s the source of the same was dou the respondents proceeded to p assessing officer changed the st recorded earlier and instead of tr gains, treated the entire conside of trade. It has been argued that nal order of assessment any mat d sale of land as a commercial at the final assessment order pas the draft assessment order and t nitiating proceedings under Secti Learned counsel for the petitio urt in The Income-Tax Officer -4- e additions proposed in the draft o capital gains and unexplained ubted. However, after furnishing pass the order dated 29.09.2021 tand completely and contrary to eating the transfer of land under eration received as an adventure t neither in the reasons recorded erial was referred indicating the l venture by the assessee. It is ssed by the assessing officer was the reasons to believe mentioned on 148 of the Act. oner has relied on judgment of r, I Ward, District VI, Calcutta ) 3 SCC 757, Delhi High Court istant Director of Income-Tax 2024.09.03 10:14 order/judgment
CWP No which may assessement no show caus
Assistant Co is objected th been passed (Appeals) lie dated 29.09. notice issued assessment o are auto sele assessment o notice and co procedure. 9. stage the pet given any op the initial no passing of th were given to not avail the be said to be the petitioner City Projects land from M he failed to s o. 19667 of 2021 be supplied subsequently. It order issued by the respondents se notice was given. Written statement on behalf mmissioner of Income Tax, Circ hat the petition would not lie as against which appeal before the es. The respondents have further 2021 was uploaded on the por d at 04.24 p.m. wherein it is state order was 15:37:03 and notice of ected for generating in one go o order generates first and immedi omputation sheet is generated. Learned counsel for the reven itioner cannot be allowed to rais pportunity and have tabulated th otice under Section 148 of the he order dated 29.09.2021 to poi o the petitioner to submit his rep same at his own peril for which e violative of principles of natura r sold the land measuring 92 kan s Private Limited on 12.06.201 anjit Singh, Jarnail Singh and K substantiate the source of investm -5- t is her submission that the s is based on reasons for which f of the respondents through cle, Panchkula has been filed. It s the final assessment order has e Commissioner of Income Tax r stated that the order impugned rtal at 04.39 p.m. and demand ed that the time of generation of f demand is 15:38:06. The same nly. As a defined sequence, the iately in succession, the demand No fault can be found with the nue further submits that at this se the grievance that he was not he dates from 20.03.2020 when Act was issued to the date of int out that several opportunities ly and put up his case but he did the action of the revenue cannot al justice. It is further stated that nals 2 marlas to M/s DSS Mega 12 which he had purchased the Karnail Singh on 14.05.2012. But ment and failed to fully disclose e h h t s x d d f e e d e s t n f s d t t a e t e VARINDER SINGH 2024.09.03 10:14 order/judgment
CWP No all material officer found and re-opene necessary sa Panchkula. 10. was appealab The reliance 30.03.2015 w trading of lan and the bene available to t the draft asse substantiate h that the asses therefore, to 11. and others (1 p
Supreme Co Dass Agarw o. 19667 of 2021 facts necessary for assessmen d the belief that the income charg ed the assessment under Sectio atisfaction of the Principal C It was also stated that the order ble, and therefore, the writ peti e placed on verification report was misconceived. As the petitio nd, the amount was rightly adde efit under Section 10(37) and S the petitioner. It is stated that th essment order but did not provid his claim, and therefore, the obj ssee has worked as an agent/ m be treated as business income. Learned counsel for the revenu urt in Raymond Woolen Mills L 1999) 236 ITR 34, wherein it wa “In determining whether co proceedings under section 147 see whether there is prima faci which revenue could reopen correctness of the material is no stage of notice.” Learned counsel for the reven ourt in Commissioner of Incom wal (2013) 357 ITR 357 in supp -6- as held as under:- 2024.09.03 10:14 order/judgment
CWP No High Court u petition when 13. judgments ci issues which 14. quote Section Section Definit
I x (14) x o. 19667 of 2021 under Article 226 of the Constit n remedy of appeal lies to the CI We have carefully considere ited at bar as well as the law as have been raised hereinabove. Before we go into the merits of n 2(14)(iii)(a) and (b) of the Act, n 2(14)(iii)(a) and (b) of the Inc tions. In this Act, unless the context oth xxx
xxx "capital asset" means— xxx
xxx (iii) agricultural land in India, n (a) in any area whi jurisdiction of a mun municipality, munici committee, town area by any other name) which has a popu thousand; or (b) in any area within th (I) not being more local limits of a board referred population of m exceeding one la (II) not being more local limits of a board referred population of exceeding ten la -7- tution ought not to entertain the IT (Appeals) under the statute. ed the submissions and the s exists today with regard to the the case, it would be apposite to , which is reproduced as under:- come Tax Act, 1961- herwise requires.-
xxx
xxx not being land situate— ch is comprised within the nicipality (whether known as a ipal corporation, notified area a committee, town committee, or ) or a cantonment board and ulation of not less than ten e distance, measured aerially,— e than two kilometres, from the any municipality or cantonment to in item (a) and which has a more than ten thousand but not akh; or e than six kilometres, from the any municipality or cantonment to in item (a) and which has a more than one lakh but not akh; or e e e o e a a r d n — e t a t e t a t VARINDER SINGH 2024.09.03 10:14 order/judgment
CWP No 15. regard to the Court should statutory alte
Officer, Com the Larger B against reass provision ava Discount Co Court in Co Agarwal (20 reiterated the Jeans Knit Bangalore an 17. Mahesh Cha others decide that alternati passed by th o. 19667 of 2021 (III) not being more local limits of a board referred population of m Explanation.—For th "population" means last preceding censu have been publishe previous year;” -8- than eight kilometres, from the any municipality or cantonment to in item (a) and which has a ore than ten lakh. he purposes of this sub-clause, 3:2 ratio held that a writ petition urt in CWP No. 4583 of 2024 – – d d s s VARINDER SINGH 2024.09.03 10:14 order/judgment
CWP No Greatship (I Pradesh and Company Lim Court Large subsequent j Officer 202 took a differe was at the complete and discretion is merits. There proceedings i 18. has held as u p I o. 19667 of 2021 India) Limited 2022 (13) Scale d another vs M/s Commercial mited 2022 (14) Scale 920. How er Bench in Calcutta Discou judgment in Red Chilli Intern 23 (452) ITR 222, the Supreme ent view. While the case of Ma initial stage, whereas in the p d the case is pending since long exercised in favour of the ass e is no bar to hear a writ peti initiated under Section 148 of th In Red Chilli International Sa under:- “We are with the petitioner rejecting the writ petition on th does not take into consideration on the jurisdiction of High Cou entertained to be examine preconditions for issue of not Income Tax Act, 1961 is satisfie under the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the Finance Act, 2021, and require a deeper and in depth co earlier case law. Accordingly, made by the High Court in the that the writ petition would not alternative remedy, clarify that depth by the High Court if and We do deem it open to examin after having examined the no -9- 770 and The State of Madhya 2024.09.03 10:14 order/judgment
CWP No.
initiated aga under section this court sho assessment a conducted un assessment b against the f Supreme Co reassessment expressly tim Constitution 148A or 148B 20. alternative re 21. challenged th could be take the final orde to be incorre uploaded on Court allowe present writ p . 19667 of 2021 including the annexure thereto, and the order under Section 1 1961.” The petitioner in the present pet ainst him by reopening the fina ns 147 and 148 of the Act. The ould entertain the writ petition. are two issues which are diff nder Section 143 of the Act. Reg before the CIT (Appeals). It is final order passed under Section ourt has been considering and t and reopening is different fro me and again entertained writ pe of India wherein the challenge B of the Act or thereafter for rea In view of above, we need not f emedy of appeal and examine the In the present case, we find t he notice issued for re-opening o en up for arguments, the respond er of assessment has been passed ect. Thereafter assessment order the portal on 29.09.2021. Upon finding that the Court w ed the petitioner to challenge th petition. -10- the reply filed by the petitioner 148 (d) of the Income Tах Act tition challenges the proceedings al assessment invoking powers e question would arise whether Reassessment and reopening of ferent from regular assessment gular appeal lies against regular s true that an appeal would lie n 147 of the Act. However, the d examining that the case of om regular assessment and has etitions under Article 226 of the is made to notice under Section assessment. further delve into the question of e case on merits. that the petitioner had initially of assessment but before the case dents stated before the Court that d. The said statement was found r was passed in the evening and was wrongly informed, the High he said assessment order in the r t s s r f t r e e f s e n f y e t d d h e VARINDER SINGH 2024.09.03 10:14 order/judgment
CWP No.
of the Act fo With regard information i verification r the agricultu Income Tax proceedings agricultural additions we undisclosed accepted. 23. petitioner on with Section assessing off assessee has well as any o 19,34,10,000
The orde of Rs.15,58 3,75,75,000/- read with S 19,34,10,000
Court the pet . 19667 of 2021 We find that the assessment pro or the assessment year 2013-14 w d to the agricultural income, in his books of accounts and the report dated 13.03.2015 with reg ural land. The same was then x on 30.03.2015 itself. Thus were completed in March, land and verification report w ere made on account of purcha income or capital gain was add The notice under Section 148 n 20.03.2020 and the subsequen 147 of the Act for the assessme ficer has made additions of Rs. failed to furnish the facts regard other income relating to it and 0/- has escaped assessment in the er further treats the amount as a 8,35,000/- and unexplained in -. However, the final assessme Section 147 of the Act hold 0/- as adventure in the nature of b As per the written submissions titioner has made two fold argum -11- oceedings under Section 143(3) were concluded in March, 2016. the petitioner had placed all e ITO, Karnal had submitted his gard to the purchase and sale of forwarded to the Director of s, when the final assessment 2016, details relating to the were available on record. No se and sale of the land and no ded and the returns were finally of the Act was issued to the nt order under Section 144 read ent year 2013-14 reflects that the 19,34,10,000/ and held that the ding the source of investment as the income to the extent of Rs. e case of assessment year 2013- short term capital gain for sum nvestment amounting to Rs. ent order under Section 143(3) ds the entire income of Rs. business. and arguments raised before the ments:- ) . l s f f t e o o y e d e e s . - m . ) . e VARINDER SINGH 2024.09.03 10:14 order/judgment
CWP No.
and the fina orders of reas 25. submitted th said to only l reassessment him. He wil at the time o with Section . 19667 of 2021 Firstly, there was no reason to escape assessment nor there w with the ITO to reach to a concl required to be re-assessed; and Secondly, that while notice w 20.03.2020 under Section 148 agricultural land had been pu source of investment, and theref Rs.19,34,10,000/- had escaped 15,58,35,000/- was liable to be gain; and Rs. 3,75,75,000/- wa source of investment; at the time Section 147 read with Sect respondents have held the am unexplained income under the nature of the business”. It is his submission that the noti al order passed, are totally on ssessment, therefore, are vitiated On the other hand, learned co at at the time of reassessment, limit himself to the contents of t t. The entire reassessment can be ll look into the different aspects of passing of order of reassessm n 147 of the Act. The tentative v -12- o believe that there is a case of was any new material available usion that the earlier assessment was issued to the petitioner on 8 of the Act alleging that the urchased without showing the fore, the income to the extent of assessment; an amount of Rs. e treated as a short term capital as to be treated as unexplained e of final assessment done under tion 143(3) of the Act, the mount of Rs.19,34,10,000/- as e heading of “adventure in the ice under Section 148 of the Act different presumptions and the d. ounsel for the respondents has the assessing officer cannot be the show cause notice issued for e done and the scope is large for which are brought to his notice ment under Section 143 (3) read view taken at the time of initial f e t n e e f . l d r e s e t e s e r r e d l VARINDER SINGH 2024.09.03 10:14 order/judgment
CWP No.
stage of dra powers. It i 29.09.2021, agricultural l conducted an any evidence any income c Section 54 o petitioner, wh land, namely was actually and he had therefore, fal therefore, ha Act as inser relating to tr both.
business as th and Section 5 26. well as variou 27. above and th . 19667 of 2021 ft assessment under Section 14 s his further submission that the A.O. has noticed and recor land, however, it proceeded to ny agricultural activities on the e in support of his any agricultu chargeable under the capital gain of the Act. Thereafter, the A. ho had been given power of atto y, Manjit Singh, Jarinal Singh a purchased from them and the p earned income as nature of b ll within the meaning of undiscl s proceeded to examine the case rted by the Finance Act, 2002 ransfer by an assessee of capital The A.O. has also proceeded he total income under the said h 50C of the Act. Learned counsel for the respo urt in Phool Chand Bajrang La us judgments cited therein. We have carefully considered e facts which have been placed o -13- 44 of the Act cannot limit his 2024.09.03 10:14 order/judgment
CWP No.
2013-14, we 2016 by the verification agricultural l the same to situated bey submitted his of final asses income as p income whic within the am the Act (sup meaning of I Revenue that of their first a case of ch reopening of 29. three Judges . 19667 of 2021 The assessment year is 2013-14 e find that the final assessment A.O. Before he passed the said relating to the transactions d land for which he invested Rs. the company M/s DSS Mega in-built test to check abuse of p Hence, after 1-4-1989, the as reopen, provided there is "tang
conclusion that there is escapem Reasons must have a live link w Our view gets support from the the Act, as quoted d hereinabo -14-
In relation to assessment year t orders were passed in March, order, he had got conducted the done by the assessee of the 3,75,75,000/- and later on sold a City Projects. The land was he ITO (Intelligence), Karnal effect on 30.03.2015. At the time he A.O. did not include the said r he included it as agricultural imits. Thus, it would not come f Section 2(14)(iii)(a) and (b) of iable to capital gain within the isfied with the submission of the ut the said transaction at the time March, 2016. It appears that it is be allowed to be a reason for Limited (2010) 2 SCC 723, a s under:- ept of "change of opinion" as an power by the assessing officer. ssessing officer has power to gible material" to come to the ment of income from assessment. with the formation of the belief. changes made to Section 147 of ve. Under the Direct Tax Laws r , e e d s l e d l e f e e e s r a n
o e
f f s VARINDER SINGH 2024.09.03 10:14 order/judgment
CWP No.
f 30. exercise of p
that they had the case wh exercised ca maintained. M the manner review asse reassessment 31. notice dated along with th up before the assessment o case was take statement in final assessm 32. that the asse . 19667 of 2021 (Amendment) Act, 1987, Parliam "reason to believe" but also i Section 147 of the Act. Howeve from the companies against om believe", Parliament reintrodu deleted the word "opinion" on arbitrary powers in the assessin We respectfully follow and h ower by the assessing officer. No document has been produc d any new information or docume hile the power is available wi arefully and sanctity of assessm Merely because a new assessing in which assessment was done essment. The power availabl t and not of review of earlier asse We also noticed that the petition 20.03.2020 as well as show he draft assessment order before e Court, it was informed that th order which actually had not bee en up, the apology was accepted the Court, however, the petition ment order dated 29.09.2021. From the perusal of the order ssing officer has now completel -15- ment not only deleted the words inserted the word "opinion" in er, on receipt of representations mission of the words "reason to uced the said expression and n the ground that it would vest ng officer.” hold the action to be arbitrary ed by the respondents to show entary evidence for reopening of th them. The same has to be ments already done should be g officer may not be happy with e earlier, cannot be a reason to le, as noticed above, is of essment. ner had challenged the order and cause notice dated 23.09.2021 this Court. When the case came he Revenue has passed the final n passed. By that time when the d by this Court of giving a wrong ner was allowed to challenge the passed on 29.09.2021, we find ly changed his stand from what s n s o d t y w f e e h o f d
e l e g e d t VARINDER SINGH 2024.09.03 10:14 order/judgment
CWP No.
he had taken cause notice Rs.19,34,100 From the sh escape in ass a sum of R 3,75,75,000/- income to be clearly based 33. the responde produced in claim under But the asses all times ass therefore, be contention h A.O. does no submissions power. When of the Act, it the said pow the case und the capital ga authority ava assessment, w . 19667 of 2021 n while issuing the draft assess e issued to the petitioner a 0,00/- was acquired as ‘adventu how cause notice, we find that sessment on account of treating i Rs.15,58,35,000/- and unexplain -. Such change of reasons for e under the heading of ‘adventu d on surmises of the assessing off We have extensively quoted the ents, who has proceeded to sub support of any agricultural acti the capital gain under Section 1 ssee, as we find, had not claime serted the same to be falling be eyond the provisions of Secti as been supported by the report ot refer either to the report of th of the assessee. We, thus, find it n an authority is empowered to e t has to remain within the four wer is required to be exercised. O er Section 147 of the Act is of ain and non-disclosure of sources ailable in law to pass order ho which was following as ‘adventu -16- sment order. There is no show alleging that the income of ure in the nature of business’. t the same was categorized as it as a short term capital gain for ned source of investment Rs. reassessment and treating the ure in the nature of business’, is fficer. e submissions of the counsel for mit that there was no evidence vity and would now, therefore, 10(37) of Section 54 of the Act. ed it as a capital gain, but has at eyond the municipal limits and, ion 2(14)(iii) of the Act. His t of the ITO (Intelligence). The he ITO (Intelligence) nor to the t a case of colourable exercise of exercise and pass orders in terms corners of the manner in which Once the basis for re-opening of non-disclosure of income under s of investment, the A.O. had no olding that income had escaped ure in the nature of business’. w f . s r . e s r e , . t , s e e f s h f r o d VARINDER SINGH 2024.09.03 10:14 order/judgment
CWP No.
Court, the a however, so on the premi year 2016-17 certain incom basis for iss assessment o 35. assessment p the report of no additions
Chawal Udy opinion” and Central Sales p p
may re-open been any rel . 19667 of 2021 In Banyan Real Estate Fund assessee was assessed of incom far as the show cause notice is ise that the assessee had not file
Later on, while passing the me has escaped assessment for suing show cause notice was d order and the same was according We find that the record was a proceedings were completed in M f the ITO was obtained with rega were made at that level. In the case of State of Uttar Pr yog and others (2015) 17 SCC 3 urt examined the issue and diff d “reasons to believe” while co s Tax Act, 1956 and held as unde “19. Under Section 21(1) o proceedings can only be initiate “reason to believe” that there i and not otherwise. It is now tr provides for “reason to believ appear on the face of the notic the material which have been pl We find that the Income Tax O any assessment already done b levant material which is disclos -17- Mauritius (supra), Delhi High me having escaped assessment, concerned, the same was issued ed his income tax return for the order it proceeded to hold that r the year 2014-15 thereto, the ference between the “change of onsidering the provisions of the er:- of the Act, the reassessment ed if the assessing authority has is a case of escaped assessment rite law that whenever a statute ve”, either the reasons should ce or they must be available on laced before him.” Officer or the Assessing Officer by him if he finds that there has sed subsequently relating to the h , d e t e l e d t h e f e t s t e d n r s e VARINDER SINGH 2024.09.03 10:14 order/judgment
CWP No.
said year or non-disclosu -18- e which would reflect that such ssessment, he can issue notice accordingly. However, the ITO essments already finalized based was wrongful or that he has a one wrongfully. Re-assessment, al available before it, which was material on which the assessing be irrelevant, irrational or vague. und based on a personal opinion nt, cannot be a reason to believe and General Mills Co. Ltd. vs can the reason to believe for re- on that from the same perusal of nt exists (ref. Binani Industries so find that the petitioner had ulturists, namely, Manjeet Singh, m of Rs. 3,75,75,000/-. He had unt having been obtained from agricultural land to M/s DSS t even come within the ambit of e to be taxed. It is an admitted eyond the municipal limits, and of Section 2 (14)(iii) (a) of the ultural activity and would be 2(14)(iii)(b) of the Act. h e O d a , s g . n e s - f s d , d m S f d d e e VARINDER SINGH 2024.09.03 10:14 order/judgment aking/reasoned
Yes/N ortable
Yes/N -19- atisfied that there is no case of tood already noticed vide final an enquiry by the A.O. at the (Intelligence), Karnal. the assessment proceedings as interference or warrant any re- roceedings initiated vide notice and are found to be illegal. ble in the eyes of law. The writ dated 20.03.2020, orders dated 2021 and demand notice dated tand disposed of. JEEV PRAKASH SHARMA)
JUDGE (SANJAY VASHISHT)
JUDGE No No f l e s - e . t d d VARINDER SINGH 2024.09.03 10:14 order/judgment
More judgments on Section 148
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
- Adj Agri International LLP, Rajkot vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), RajkotITA 1198/RJT/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Tankala Soumya vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Rayagada Circle, RayagadaOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Pooja, Town Hallroad, Cuttack vs. State Tax Officer, Cuttack-I West Circle,CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Chicvogue Fashions Lip, Ganjam vs. State Tax Officer Bhubaneswar- Ii CircleOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Priya, Townhall Road, Cuttack vs. Superintendent Cuttack- I Range, CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- Dwaraka Jewellers, Bhubaneswar vs. Superintendent, CGST And Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
