Allahabad High Court Judgments — 2025

The High Court held that regardless of whether the amended Section 148-A statutorily mandated an opportunity, the precedential law established in GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd v. Income Tax Officer (2003) 259 ITR 19 (SC) required the Assessing Authority to afford a minimal opportunity to the assessee to object to the initiation of re-assessment proceedings before they are undertaken. The Court found the revenue's objection to be hyper-technical and that the rule of law under Article 141 of the Constitution, as reinforced by the GKN Driveshafts judgment and the statutory principle in Section 148-A, mandates such an opportunity. The Court directed that the petitioners must file their returns by October 31, 2025. Thereafter, the Assessing Authority must provide the petitioners with the information relied upon within one week. The petitioners will then have two weeks to file objections, and the authority must pass a reasoned speaking order within two weeks of receiving objections. If re-assessment proceedings are initiated, the first date must be fixed with at least thirty days' advance notice. The Court noted that jurisdictional issues could be raised later if they survive.

The High Court quashed and set aside the impugned order dated 17.06.2025 passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court found that the writ petition and its annexures clearly indicated that sufficient cause was shown for the delay in filing the Income Tax Return. The Court was of the view that the concerned officer should have been lenient with regard to the condonation of delay application. Accordingly, the application for condonation of delay was allowed. The petitioner was directed to file its income tax return within a period of two weeks from the date of the order. The writ petition was disposed of with these directions.

The High Court held that no interference was required at this stage. The Court reasoned that the notice issued was merely a summons requiring the petitioners to appear and produce documents, either personally or through an authorized representative. The Court viewed this as a procedural step in the assessment process. Consequently, the High Court directed the petitioners to appear before the concerned authorities on October 14, 2025, at 11:00 A.M., explicitly stating that no adjournment would be granted. The writ petition was disposed of with this direction. No specific issue regarding the merits of the assessment or the validity of the summons beyond its procedural nature was decided.

The Court directed the authorities to pass a reasoned order in accordance with law within 12 weeks from the date of the order. This order was to be passed after granting an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. The Court explicitly stated that all points of law, including the point of limitation, shall be kept open before the authorities. The Court did not decide on the validity of the reassessment proceedings themselves but rather on the procedural aspect of the unaddressed objection. The operative direction was for the authorities to consider the petitioner's objection and pass a reasoned order.

The High Court held that orders passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in all such matters, along with any consequential proceedings, were required to be quashed and set aside. The Court directed the Assessing Officer to allow the petitioner to file fresh objections, including jurisdictional ones, and to dispose of these objections in accordance with the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Ashish Agarwal and Rajeev Bansal. The petitioner was granted four weeks to file these objections and was assured an opportunity of hearing. The Court clarified that the assessee could pursue all rights and remedies except those concluded by the Supreme Court judgments. It also noted that the observations made by the Supreme Court in paragraphs 112, 113, and 114 of Rajeev Bansal regarding orders passed under Section 148A(d) beyond time would apply.

The High Court held that orders passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and any other consequential proceedings in such matters are required to be quashed and set aside. The Court directed the Assessing Officer to allow the petitioner to file fresh objections. 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 permitted to raise new objections, including jurisdictional ones, and rely on other applicable Supreme Court judgments. The objections are to be filed within four weeks, after which the authority must grant a hearing and pass orders in accordance with the law. The assessee is also at liberty to pursue all rights and remedies, except for issues already concluded by the Supreme Court in Ashish Agarwal and Rajeev Bansal. The Court also noted that observations made in paragraphs 112, 113, and 114 of Rajeev Bansal regarding orders passed under Section 148A(d) beyond time shall apply.

The High Court held that orders passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in all the aforementioned matters, and any consequential proceedings, are required to be quashed and set aside. The Assessing Officer is directed to allow the petitioner to file fresh objections. These objections must 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 are to be filed within four weeks. The authority must then provide a hearing opportunity and pass orders as per law. The assessee can pursue all rights and remedies except those concluded by the Ashish Agarwal and Rajeev Bansal judgments. Observations made by the Supreme Court in paragraphs 112, 113, and 114 of Rajeev Bansal regarding orders passed beyond time shall also apply.

The High Court held that orders passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and any consequential proceedings in all such matters are required to be quashed and set aside. The Assessing Officer is directed 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 permitted to raise new objections, including jurisdictional ones, and rely on other applicable Supreme Court judgments. The objections are to be filed within four weeks, after which the authority must grant a hearing and pass orders in accordance with law. The assessee is also at liberty to pursue all rights and remedies, except for issues already concluded by the Supreme Court in the aforementioned cases. The Court also clarified that observations made by the Supreme Court in paragraphs 112, 113, and 114 of Rajeev Bansal regarding orders passed beyond time shall apply.

The Tribunal held that the orders passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in all such matters, including the present one, and any consequential proceedings, are required to be quashed and set aside. The Assessing Officer was directed to allow the petitioner to file fresh objections, including jurisdictional ones, and to dispose of these objections in accordance with the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Ashish Agarwal and Rajeev Bansal. The petitioner was granted liberty to raise new objections and rely on other applicable Supreme Court judgments. The petitioner was to file these objections within four weeks, and the authority was to grant a hearing and pass orders accordingly. The Tribunal also clarified that the assessee is at liberty to pursue all rights and remedies, except for issues concluded by the judgments of Ashish Agarwal and Rajeev Bansal. Further, for orders passed under Section 148A(d) beyond time, the observations made by the Supreme Court in paragraphs 112, 113, and 114 of Rajeev Bansal were to apply. The ratio decidendi is that reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 148 based on notices issued between April 1, 2021, and June 30, 2021, are subject to the principles laid down in Ashish Agarwal and Rajeev Bansal, and if found to be invalid, fresh opportunities for filing objections must be provided.

The High Court held that the orders passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in all such matters, including the petitioner's, and any consequential proceedings, are required to be quashed and set aside. This decision is based on the Supreme Court's pronouncements in Union of India vs. Rajeev Bansal and Union of India vs. Ashish Agarwal, which dealt with the validity of notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act from April 1, 2021, to June 30, 2021. The Court directed the Assessing Officer to allow the petitioner to file fresh objections within four weeks, including jurisdictional ones, and to dispose of these objections in accordance with the law laid down by the Supreme Court. The petitioner is also permitted to rely on other applicable Supreme Court judgments. The Assessing Officer must grant an opportunity of hearing before passing orders. The Court also clarified that observations made in paragraphs 112, 113, and 114 of the Rajeev Bansal judgment regarding orders passed beyond time shall apply.

The High Court held that orders passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and any consequential proceedings, in all such matters, are required to be quashed and set aside. The Assessing Officer was directed to allow the petitioner to file fresh objections, including jurisdictional ones and those based on other applicable Supreme Court judgments, within four weeks. After the objections are filed, the Assessing Officer must grant an opportunity of hearing and pass orders in accordance with the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Ashish Agarwal and Rajeev Bansal. The assessee is at liberty to pursue all rights and remedies except those concluded by the Supreme Court judgments. The Court also noted that observations made by the Supreme Court in paragraphs 112, 113, and 114 of Rajeev Bansal regarding orders passed under Section 148A(d) beyond time shall apply.

The Allahabad High Court held that orders passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in matters concerning reassessment notices issued between April 1, 2021, and June 30, 2021, are required to be quashed and set aside. This decision is based on the Supreme Court's judgments in Union of India vs. Rajeev Bansal and Union of India vs. Ashish Agarwal, which have settled the issue of the validity of such notices. The court directed the Assessing Officer to allow the petitioner to file fresh objections, including jurisdictional ones, within four weeks. The Assessing Officer must then provide an opportunity for a hearing and pass orders in accordance with the law laid down by the Supreme Court. The assessee is permitted to pursue all legal remedies except those already concluded by the Supreme Court's rulings. The court also noted that observations made by the Supreme Court in paragraphs 112, 113, and 114 of the Rajeev Bansal judgment regarding orders passed beyond time would apply.

The High Court held that the orders passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in all such matters, including the petitioner's, and any consequential proceedings, are required to be quashed and set aside. This decision is based on the Supreme Court's pronouncements in Union of India vs. Rajeev Bansal and Union of India vs. Ashish Agarwal, which have decided the issue regarding the validity of notices issued under Section 148 from April 1, 2021, till June 30, 2021. The court directed the Assessing Officer to allow the petitioner to file objections again and dispose of them in accordance with the law laid down by the Supreme Court. The petitioner is at liberty to raise new objections, including jurisdictional ones, and rely on other applicable Supreme Court judgments. These objections are to be filed within four weeks, after which the authority must grant a hearing and pass orders. The assessee is also free to pursue other rights and remedies, except for issues concluded by the Supreme Court judgments. The court also noted that observations made in paragraphs 112, 113, and 114 of Rajeev Bansal (supra) regarding orders passed under Section 148A(d) beyond time shall apply.

The High Court held that 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 Assessing Officer was directed to allow the petitioner to file fresh objections, including jurisdictional ones, and to dispose of these objections in accordance with the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Ashish Agarwal and Rajeev Bansal. The petitioner was granted liberty to raise new objections and rely on other applicable Supreme Court judgments. The authority was directed to grant an opportunity of hearing and pass orders in accordance with law. The assessee was also given liberty to pursue all rights and remedies, except those concluded by the Supreme Court judgments. The Court also made it clear that observations made by the Supreme Court in paragraphs 112, 113, and 114 of Rajeev Bansal regarding orders passed beyond time shall apply.

The High Court held that the order dated April 7, 2025, passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(1)(1), Kanpur, rejecting the petitioner's rectification application under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was in violation of the principles of audi alteram partem and natural justice, as it was passed without granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Consequently, the impugned order was quashed and set aside. The Court directed the authorities to grant an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner in accordance with law before disposing of the Section 154 application. The ratio decidendi is that an order passed without affording a hearing, when such a hearing is contemplated or required by principles of natural justice, is unsustainable and liable to be set aside.

The Tribunal, in light of the submissions made by the revenue, directed the respondent concerned to ensure that the refunds are received by the petitioner within a period of 8 weeks from the date of the order. The Tribunal emphasized that all efforts should be made by the respondent concerned to ensure this outcome in accordance with law. No specific issue was left undecided, as the matter was resolved based on the revenue's submission regarding the refund processing. The operative direction was for the expeditious release of the refunds to the petitioner.

The Tribunal, in light of the submissions made by the respondents, directed the concerned respondent to ensure that the refunds are received by the petitioner within a period of eight weeks from the date of the order. All efforts were to be made by the respondent concerned to ensure this compliance in accordance with law. The writ petition was disposed of with these directions. No specific finding on the entitlement to the refund was recorded, as the issue was resolved based on the respondent's submission regarding processing and expected disbursement.

The High Court allowed Writ Tax No. 71 of 2025 and dismissed the Customs Appeals. The Court found that the department's actions in drawing samples and sending them for testing were motivated and suspicious, lacking adherence to established guidelines and regulations. Specifically, the Court noted that the department sent a second sample for testing without an application from the importer, contrary to Regulation 9(9) and 9(10) of the Food Safety and Standards (Import) Regulations, 2017. The Court also observed that the time limits for analysis under the FSSAI Guidelines were flouted. The earliest report from M/s Fare Labs Pvt. Ltd., which indicated the commodity as 'roasted areca nuts' with 3.39% moisture content, was deemed the most authentic and reliable, meeting the guidelines of FSSA and the Customs Department. The Court found no plausible reasons for denying the benefit of this report to the importer. Consequently, the seizure memo dated 10.03.2025 was quashed, and the imported commodity was directed to be released on usual compliances, subject to the condition that the importer provides for treatment of the nuts by 'Gamma Irradiation process' as per BARC recommendations. The Court clarified that it only dealt with the classification issue and not other avenues of import or issues not raised.

The High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the petitioner had failed to point out any extraordinary or exceptional circumstances to bypass the statutory alternative remedy of appeal. The Court noted that the parameters for exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are well-settled and should be exercised sparingly, only in exceptional circumstances, even when an alternative remedy exists. The judgment cited the Supreme Court's decisions in Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited vs. MB Power (MP) Limited and Radha Krishan Industries vs. State of H.P. to emphasize that when a statute prescribes a remedy, that remedy must be pursued before invoking the discretionary remedy under Article 226. The Court found no failure of natural justice or lack of jurisdiction in the proceedings. The determination made by the assessing authority, based on the material on record, was open to appeal. Therefore, the petition was dismissed, leaving it open for the petitioner to avail the alternative remedy.