PREM INFRACITY PVT. LTD. vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER CIRCLE AND 4 OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
WTAX/493/2023HC AllahabadUPHC01087972202306 August 20252 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The Allahabad High Court held that the orders passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in all such matters, and any consequential proceedings, are required to be quashed and set aside. The Court directed the Assessing Officer to allow the petitioner to file objections once again. These objections are to be disposed of in accordance with the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Ashish Agarwal and Rajeev Bansal. The petitioner is granted liberty to raise new objections, including jurisdictional ones, and rely on other applicable Supreme Court judgments. The objections must be filed within four weeks, after which the authority shall grant a hearing and pass orders. The assessee is also at liberty to pursue all rights and remedies, except for issues concluded by the Supreme Court judgments. The Court also clarified that observations made by the Supreme Court in Rajeev Bansal regarding orders passed beyond time shall apply.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Prem Infracity Pvt. Ltd., filed a writ petition challenging an order passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which rejected its objections to the initiation of reassessment proceedings under Section 148. The assessment year(s) are not explicitly stated. The dispute arises from the rejection of objections against reassessment proceedings. The procedural history involves the petitioner filing objections which were subsequently rejected by the Assessing Officer. The matter is before the Allahabad High Court.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the order passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, rejecting the petitioner's objections to reassessment proceedings, is valid in light of the Supreme Court's decisions in Union of India vs. Rajeev Bansal and Union of India vs. Ashish Agarwal. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner implicitly challenges the validity of the reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 148, likely arguing that the order under Section 148A(d) is flawed due to the Supreme Court's pronouncements on notices issued under Section 148 from April 1, 2021, to June 30, 2021. Revenue's Contention: The revenue, represented by the Assistant Commissioner and others, defended the order passed under Section 148A(d). Their specific arguments are not detailed, but they would have opposed the quashing of the reassessment proceedings.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148A,Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:133890-DB

Court No. - 3 Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 493 of 2023 Petitioner :- Prem Infracity Pvt. Ltd. Respondent :- Assistant Commissioner Circle And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rahul Agarwal Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,Gaurav Mahajan,Sudarshan Singh Hon'ble Shekhar B. Saraf,J. Hon'ble Praveen Kumar Giri,J. 1. Heard Sri Rahul Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner; Sri Navin Chandra Gupta, Sri Gopal Verma & Sri Sudarshan Singh, learned counsel for the respondent-Union of India and learned counsel Sri Gaurav Mahajan on behalf of the Income Tax Department. 2. It is to be noted that the petitioner has come before this Court primarily against the order passed under Section 148(A)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, wherein its objections to the initiation of reassessment proceedings under Section 148 have been rejected. It is also to be noted that the Supreme Court in Union of India vs. Rajeev Bansal reported in (2024) 167 taxmann.com 70 (SC) and Union of India vs. Ashish Agarwal reported in (2022) 138 taxmann.com 64, has finally decided the issue with regard to the validity of notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax, 1961 from 1st April, 2021 till 30th June, 2021. 3. In light of the above, we are of the view that the orders passed under Section 148(A)(d) of the Income Tax, 1961, in all the above matters and any other consequential proceedings, are required to be quashed and set aside with a direction upon the Assessing Officer to allow the petitioner to once again file objections, and thereafter, dispose of the objections in terms of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Ashish Agarwal (supra) and Rajeev Bansal (supra). The petitioner shall be at liberty to raise new objections, including jurisdictional ones and rely upon other judgments of the Apex Court as applicable. These objections should be filed by the petitioner within a period of four weeks. The authority shall thereafter grant an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass orders in accordance with law. 4. We make it clear that the assessee shall also be at liberty to

pursue all the rights and remedies in accordance with law, except the issues that have been concluded in the judgments of Ashish Agarwal (supra) and Rajeev Bansal (supra). 5. With regard to the orders passed under Section 148(A)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 that may have been passed beyond time as observed by the Supreme Court in paragraphs 112, 113 and 114 of Rajeev Bansal (supra), we make it clear that the observations made therein shall apply. 6. With the above observations and directions, the writ petition is disposed of. Order Date :- 7.8.2025 DKS (Praveen Kumar Giri,J.) (Shekhar B. Saraf, J.) Digitally signed by :- DEEPAK KUMAR SRIVASTWA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

More judgments on Section 148A

All 3,543 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →