Loading High Court cases…
50 orders · Page 1 of 1
The High Court held that the order under Section 148A(b) and the notice under Section 148, both dated July 22, 2022, were not sustainable in the given factual backdrop. The court found merit in the petitioner's contention that the authorities had considered a transaction of Rs. 14 Lakhs which was not part of the original notices issued. This violated the principle that the department cannot travel beyond the scope of the show cause notice, as established in the Supreme Court's decision in Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai Vs. Toyo Engineering India Ltd. Furthermore, the court noted that if this Rs. 14 Lakhs transaction was excluded, the income escaping assessment would be less than Rs. 50 Lakhs, which, in terms of the circular dated May 11, 2022, would mean the proceedings could not have been initiated. Consequently, the court set aside the impugned orders, reserving the right of the department to take appropriate recourse as per law if permissible.
The High Court allowed the writ petition, quashing the notices dated July 15, 2022 (Section 148A(d)) and July 19, 2022 (Section 148). The Court found that the factual matrix of the case squarely fit the decisions of the Delhi High Court in Mahashian Di Hatti Pvt. Limited and Divya Capital One Private Limited, which in turn relied on the Supreme Court's judgment in Union of India & others v. Ashish Agrawal. The Court held that the non-supply of necessary information and material documents to the petitioner, despite specific requests, prevented him from justifying his conduct or providing a reasonable explanation. Following the Supreme Court's directive in Ashish Agrawal, the matter was remitted back to the department. The department was directed to provide the necessary information and material documents referred to in the notice under Section 148A(b) to the petitioner. Thereafter, a fresh order under Section 148A(d) was to be passed after considering the petitioner's contentions. The ratio decidendi is that the principles of natural justice, as interpreted by the Supreme Court and High Courts, mandate the supply of relevant material to the assessee to enable a meaningful response during reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 148A.
The High Court quashed the impugned order dated August 27, 2020. The Court reasoned that while the State Counsel's technical argument regarding the original contract terms might be correct, it was essential to consider the broader context. The Court noted that the State Government itself had, through various orders for other departments and a subsequent amendment to clause 2.17.1 in the Water Resources Department on September 30, 2022, accepted the principle of reimbursing contractors for additional tax burdens arising from new taxes. The Court found the rejection of the petitioner's claim discriminatory and arbitrary, violating Article 14 of the Constitution, especially since similar claims were being accepted by other departments. The Court directed the petitioner to submit a fresh claim detailing the difference in tax liability. Upon receipt, the respondents were ordered to process the claim and reimburse the petitioner after due scrutiny within three months. The issue of whether the petitioner had submitted the required documentation was implicitly set aside by the direction to resubmit a fresh claim.
The Tribunal held that the legislature has provided a time schedule for the Assessing Officer under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, ranging from 7 to 30 days. The Assessing Officer did not consider the petitioner's request for 30 days and did not assign any reason for not granting time within the prescribed range. Following the law laid down by the Delhi High Court in Ester Industries Ltd. (Supra), the impugned order dated March 30, 2022, passed under Section 148A(d) of the Act, was set aside. The petitioner was directed to submit clarification within 15 days from the date of the order. The notice dated March 17, 2022, issued under Section 148A(a) was not to be given effect until the Assessing Officer passed a reasoned order under Section 148A(d) after considering the petitioner's clarification within 15 days. The respondents were directed to open the e-portal for the petitioner to upload its reply, and the Assessing Officer was to pass a reasoned order within eight weeks. The Court clarified that it had not commented on the merits of the case, leaving the rights and contentions of all parties open to be decided by the Assessing Authority.
The High Court held that the writ petition challenging the order passed under Section 148A(d) and the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is not maintainable at this stage. The Court reasoned that the Assessing Authority had furnished the credible information in the impugned order under Section 148A(d) and, after considering the material, recorded a finding that it was a fit case for issuing notice under Section 148. The petitioner failed to demonstrate that the findings were contrary to the material on record, that the Assessing Authority had not applied its mind, or that the petitioner's reply was not considered. The Court relied on the principles laid down in GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. vs. ITO and Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Chhabil Das Agarwal, emphasizing that the Income Tax Act provides a complete machinery for assessment/reassessment, and assessees are not permitted to abandon this machinery to invoke the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226, except in exceptional circumstances not present here. The Court clarified that it had not examined the contentions on merit, and the Assessing Authority should decide the case as per the material available without being influenced by the Court's observations. The petitioner was advised to seek remedy through the appellate process.
The High Court, in light of the Supreme Court's judgment in Union of India & others v. Ashish Agarwal, disposed of the instant petition. The Supreme Court had held that notices issued under the unamended Section 148 of the IT Act, which were the subject matter of writ petitions before various High Courts, shall be deemed to have been issued under Section 148A of the IT Act as substituted by the Finance Act, 2021. These notices were to be construed as show-cause notices under Section 148A(b). The Assessing Officer was directed to provide information and material relied upon within thirty days, allowing assessees two weeks to reply. The requirement of conducting an enquiry under Section 148A(a) was dispensed with as a one-time measure for notices issued from April 1, 2021, till the date of the order. The Assessing Officers were to pass orders under Section 148A(d) and thereafter issue notices under Section 148 as substituted. All defenses available to assessees, including under Section 149, were preserved. This order was made applicable PAN India and governed pending writ petitions.
The High Court held that the issue involved in these petitions had already been decided by a Division Bench of the same court in Writ Appeal No. 277/2021. This decision, in turn, was based on the Supreme Court's judgment in Union of India & Others v. Ashish Agarwal. The Supreme Court had directed that notices issued under the unamended Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, from April 1, 2021, onwards, would be deemed to have been issued under Section 148A of the Act. These notices were to be treated as show-cause notices under Section 148A(b), requiring the Assessing Officer to provide information and material to the assessees for their reply. The requirement of conducting an inquiry under Section 148A(a) was dispensed with as a one-time measure. The Assessing Officer was then to pass orders under Section 148A(d) and subsequently issue notices under the substituted Section 148. All defenses available to the assessees and revenue under the Finance Act, 2021, and other laws were preserved. The High Court, by following this precedent, disposed of the present petitions.
The High Court held that the issue involved in the writ petitions had already been decided by a Division Bench of the same court. This decision was based on the Supreme Court's ruling in Union of India & Others v. Ashish Agarwal. The Supreme Court, in its order, modified and substituted the impugned Section 148 notices. These notices, issued under the unamended Section 148, were to be deemed as issued under Section 148A of the Income Tax Act, as substituted by the Finance Act, 2021, and construed as show-cause notices under Section 148A(b). The Assessing Officer was directed to provide information and material relied upon to the assessees within thirty days, allowing them two weeks to reply. The requirement of conducting an enquiry under Section 148A(a) was dispensed with as a one-time measure for notices issued under the unamended Act from April 1, 2021, till the date of the order. After following the procedure under Section 148A, the Assessing Officer could issue a notice under the substituted Section 148. All defenses available to the assessees and the revenue under the Finance Act, 2021, and in law were preserved. The High Court, following this precedent, disposed of the petitions.
The High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur, disposed of the writ petitions in light of the observations made by a Division Bench of the same court in Writ Appeal No. 277/2021. This Division Bench's decision was based on the Supreme Court's ruling in Union of India & Others v. Ashish Agarwal. The Supreme Court had directed that Section 148 notices issued under the unamended Act, which were the subject of writ petitions before various High Courts, shall be deemed to have been issued under Section 148A of the Act as substituted by the Finance Act, 2021. These notices are to be construed as show-cause notices under Section 148A(b). The Assessing Officer is required to provide information and material relied upon to the assessees within thirty days, allowing them two weeks to reply. The requirement of conducting an enquiry under Section 148A(a) was dispensed with as a one-time measure for notices issued from April 1, 2021, till the date of the order. The Assessing Officers are to pass orders under Section 148A(d) and thereafter issue notices under the substituted Section 148, following the prescribed procedure. All defenses available to the assessees and the Revenue under the Finance Act, 2021, and other laws remain available. The Supreme Court's order was applicable pan-India and modified or substituted similar judgments and orders of various High Courts, including pending writ petitions.
The High Court held that the issue involved in the petitions had already been decided by a Division Bench of the same court, which had followed the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India & Others v. Ashish Agarwal. The Supreme Court, in its judgment, had modified and substituted the impugned notices. Specifically, notices issued under the unamended Section 148 of the IT Act, from April 1, 2021, till the date of the order, were to be deemed as issued under Section 148A of the IT Act and construed as show-cause notices in terms of Section 148A(b). The Assessing Officer was directed to provide information to the assessees within thirty days, allowing them two weeks to reply. The requirement of conducting an inquiry under Section 148A(a) was dispensed with as a one-time measure. The Assessing Officers were then to pass orders under Section 148A(d) and, thereafter, issue notices under the substituted Section 148. All defenses available to the assessees, including those under Section 149, and all rights and contentions under the Finance Act, 2021, and in law, were preserved. The High Court, therefore, disposed of the petitions in light of these observations.
The High Court held that the issue involved in these petitions had already been decided by a Division Bench of the same court in Writ Appeal No. 277/2021. This decision, in turn, was based on the Supreme Court's judgment in Union of India & Others v. Ashish Agarwal. The Supreme Court, in Ashish Agarwal, had modified and substituted its earlier orders concerning Section 148 notices issued under the unamended Act. The Supreme Court directed that such notices issued between April 1, 2021, and the date of its order should be deemed to have been issued under Section 148A of the Act and treated as show-cause notices. The Assessing Officer was directed to provide information to the assessees, who would then have two weeks to reply. The requirement of conducting an enquiry under Section 148A(a) was dispensed with as a one-time measure. The Assessing Officers were to pass orders under Section 148A(d) and thereafter issue notices under the substituted Section 148. All defenses available to the assessees and Revenue under the Finance Act, 2021, and law were preserved. The Supreme Court's order was made applicable PAN INDIA and governed pending writ petitions before various High Courts. Consequently, the High Court disposed of the present petitions in light of the Division Bench's observation, which followed the Supreme Court's directive.
The High Court held that the issue involved in the petitions had already been decided by a Division Bench of the same court. This decision was based on the Supreme Court's judgment in Union of India & Others v. Ashish Agarwal. The Supreme Court, in its judgment, had modified and substituted the impugned notices issued under the unamended Section 148 of the IT Act. These notices were to be deemed as issued under Section 148A of the IT Act and construed as show-cause notices. The Assessing Officer was directed to provide information to the assessees, who would then have two weeks to reply. The requirement of conducting an enquiry under Section 148A(a) was dispensed with as a one-time measure. The Assessing Officers were then to pass orders under Section 148A(d) and, thereafter, issue notices under the substituted Section 148. All defenses available to the assessees and the Revenue were preserved. The High Court, in light of this, disposed of the petitions.
The High Court, by referring to its own Division Bench's decision in Writ Appeal No. 277/2021, which in turn relied on the Supreme Court's judgment in Union of India & Others v. Ashish Agarwal, disposed of the writ petitions. The Supreme Court's order, as applied by the High Court, directed that impugned Section 148 notices issued under the unamended Act shall be deemed to have been issued under Section 148A of the Act. The assessing officer is required to provide information to the assessees, who can then reply to show-cause notices. The requirement of conducting an enquiry under Section 148A(a) was dispensed with as a one-time measure. After following the procedure under Section 148A, the assessing officer may issue a notice under the substituted Section 148. All defenses available to the assessees and revenue under the Finance Act, 2021, and law remain available. The Supreme Court's order was made applicable PAN India and governed pending writ petitions challenging similar notices. The High Court's operative direction was to dispose of the petitions in light of these observations.
The High Court held that the issue involved in the petitions had already been decided by a Division Bench of the same court, which had followed the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India & Others v. Ashish Agarwal. The Supreme Court, in its judgment, had modified and substituted the impugned notices. Specifically, notices issued under the unamended Section 148 of the IT Act, from April 1, 2021, till the date of the order, were to be deemed as issued under Section 148A of the IT Act and construed as show-cause notices in terms of Section 148A(b). The Assessing Officer was directed to provide information to the assessees within thirty days, allowing them two weeks to reply. The requirement of conducting an inquiry under Section 148A(a) was dispensed with as a one-time measure. The Assessing Officers were then to pass orders under Section 148A(d) and, thereafter, issue notices under the substituted Section 148. All defenses available to the assessees, including those under Section 149, and all rights and contentions under the Finance Act, 2021, and in law, were preserved. The High Court, therefore, disposed of the petitions in light of these observations.
The High Court held that the petition stands disposed of in terms of the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India & Others v. Ashish Agarwal. The Supreme Court's order, which is binding, modified and substituted the impugned common judgment and orders. Specifically, notices issued under the unamended Section 148, which were the subject matter of writ petitions before various High Courts, shall be deemed to have been issued under Section 148A of the IT Act as substituted by the Finance Act, 2021, and construed as show-cause notices under Section 148A(b). The Assessing Officer is to provide information and material relied upon by the Revenue within thirty days, allowing assessees two weeks to reply. The requirement of conducting an enquiry under Section 148A(a) is dispensed with as a one-time measure for notices issued under the unamended Act from April 1, 2021, till the date of the order. The Assessing Officers shall thereafter pass orders under Section 148A(d) and then issue notice under Section 148 as substituted. All defenses available to the assessees, including under Section 149, and all rights and contentions available to both parties under the Finance Act, 2021, and in law, shall continue to be available. This order is applicable PAN INDIA and governs pending writ petitions.
The High Court held that the present case is squarely covered by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India & Others v. Ashish Agarwal. The Supreme Court's order, in that case, deemed notices issued under the unamended Section 148 of the IT Act as having been issued under Section 148A of the IT Act, as substituted by the Finance Act, 2021. It directed that such notices be treated as show-cause notices under Section 148A(b), with the Assessing Officer providing information and material relied upon by the Revenue within thirty days, and the assessees having two weeks to reply. The requirement of conducting an enquiry under Section 148A(a) was dispensed with as a one-time measure. The Assessing Officers were to thereafter pass orders under Section 148A(d) and, if necessary, issue a notice under Section 148 as substituted. Crucially, the Supreme Court held that all defenses available to the assessees, including those under Section 149 of the IT Act, and all rights and contentions available to both parties under the Finance Act, 2021, and in law, shall continue to be available. The High Court concluded that, in view of this, the petition stands disposed of in terms of the Supreme Court's order.
The High Court held that the case was squarely covered by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India & Others v. Ashish Agarwal. The Supreme Court, in its judgment, had directed that Section 148 notices issued under the unamended Act, which were the subject matter of writ petitions, would be deemed to have been issued under Section 148A of the Act as substituted by the Finance Act, 2021, and treated as show-cause notices under Section 148A(b). The Assessing Officer was to provide information and material relied upon by the Revenue, and assessees could reply within two weeks. The requirement of conducting an enquiry under Section 148A(a) was dispensed with as a one-time measure for notices issued from 01.04.2021 till the date of the order. The Assessing Officers were to pass orders under Section 148A(d) and thereafter issue a notice under Section 148 as substituted. Crucially, the Supreme Court held that all defenses available to the assessees, including those under Section 149 of the IT Act, and all rights and contentions available to both assessees and the Revenue under the Finance Act, 2021, and in law, would continue to be available. The High Court concluded that based on this, the present petition stood disposed of in terms of the Supreme Court's order.
The High Court held that the petition stands disposed of in terms of the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India & Others v. Ashish Agarwal. The Supreme Court had directed that Section 148 notices issued to assessees under the unamended Section 148 of the IT Act, which were the subject matter of writ petitions before various High Courts, shall be deemed to have been issued under Section 148A of the IT Act as substituted by the Finance Act, 2021. These notices were to be construed as show-cause notices in terms of Section 148A(b). The assessing officer was directed to provide information and material relied upon by the Revenue within thirty days, allowing assessees two weeks to reply. The requirement of conducting an enquiry under Section 148A(a) was dispensed with as a one-time measure for notices issued under the unamended Section 148 from 01.04.2021 till the date of the Supreme Court's order. Thereafter, assessing officers were to pass orders under Section 148A(d) and then issue notices under Section 148 as substituted. All defenses available to the assessees, including those under Section 149, and all rights and contentions under the Finance Act, 2021, were preserved. The Supreme Court's order was made applicable PAN INDIA and was to govern pending writ petitions before various High Courts.
The High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur, disposed of the batch of writ appeals and writ petitions in terms of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India & Others v. Ashish Agarwal. The Supreme Court held that impugned Section 148 notices issued under the unamended Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, which were subject to writ petitions before various High Courts, shall be deemed to have been issued under Section 148A of the Act as substituted by the Finance Act, 2021, and construed as show-cause notices under Section 148A(b). The assessing officer was directed to provide information and material to the assessees within thirty days, allowing the assessees two weeks thereafter to reply. The requirement of conducting an inquiry under Section 148A(a) was dispensed with as a one-time measure for notices issued under the unamended Section 148 from April 1, 2021, till the date of the order. Assessing officers were then to pass orders under Section 148A(d) and subsequently issue notices under Section 148 as substituted. All defenses available to the assessees and revenue were preserved. This order was made applicable PAN INDIA and was passed in exercise of powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to avoid further litigation.
The High Court held that in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India & Others v. Ashish Agarwal, no further hearing was required for the batch of writ appeals and writ petitions. The Court disposed of all these cases in terms of the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court's judgment, in essence, provided a mechanism to treat notices issued under the unamended Section 148 as show-cause notices under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as substituted by the Finance Act, 2021. It also dispensed with the requirement of conducting an enquiry under Section 148A(a) as a one-time measure for certain notices and directed assessing officers to pass orders under Section 148A(d) before issuing a notice under the substituted Section 148. All defenses available to the assessees and the Revenue were preserved. The Supreme Court's order was made applicable PAN India and governed pending writ petitions before various High Courts.
The High Court disposed of the batch of writ appeals and writ petitions in terms of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India & Others v. Ashish Agarwal. The Supreme Court's decision held that impugned Section 148 notices, issued under the unamended Section 148 and subject to writ petitions before various High Courts, shall be deemed to have been issued under Section 148A of the Income Tax Act, as substituted by the Finance Act, 2021. These notices are to be construed as show-cause notices in terms of Section 148A(b). The Assessing Officer is required to provide information and material relied upon by the Revenue within thirty days, allowing assessees two weeks to reply. The requirement of conducting an enquiry under Section 148A(a) is dispensed with as a one-time measure for notices issued under the unamended Section 148 from April 1, 2021, till the date of the judgment. Thereafter, Assessing Officers are to pass orders under Section 148A(d) and, if necessary, issue a fresh notice under Section 148. All defenses available to the assessees and the Revenue under the Finance Act, 2021, and law remain available. This order applies pan-India and modifies similar judgments and orders passed by various High Courts.
The High Court disposed of the batch of writ appeals and writ petitions in terms of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India & Others v. Ashish Agarwal. The Supreme Court's decision held that impugned Section 148 notices, issued under the unamended Section 148 and subject to writ petitions before various High Courts, shall be deemed to have been issued under Section 148A of the Income Tax Act, as substituted by the Finance Act, 2021. These notices are to be construed as show-cause notices in terms of Section 148A(b). The Assessing Officer is required to provide information and material relied upon by the Revenue within thirty days, allowing assessees two weeks to reply. The requirement of conducting an enquiry under Section 148A(a) is dispensed with as a one-time measure for notices issued under the unamended Section 148 from April 1, 2021, till the date of the judgment. Thereafter, Assessing Officers are to pass orders under Section 148A(d) and, if necessary, issue a fresh notice under Section 148. All defenses available to the assessees and the Revenue under the Finance Act, 2021, and law remain available. This order applies pan-India and modifies similar judgments and orders passed by various High Courts.
The High Court disposed of the batch of writ appeals and writ petitions in terms of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India & Others v. Ashish Agarwal. The Supreme Court's decision held that impugned Section 148 notices, issued under the unamended Section 148 and subject to writ petitions before various High Courts, shall be deemed to have been issued under Section 148A of the Income Tax Act, as substituted by the Finance Act, 2021. These notices are to be construed as show-cause notices in terms of Section 148A(b). The Assessing Officer is required to provide information and material relied upon by the Revenue within thirty days, allowing assessees two weeks to reply. The requirement of conducting an enquiry under Section 148A(a) is dispensed with as a one-time measure for notices issued under the unamended Section 148 from April 1, 2021, till the date of the judgment. Thereafter, Assessing Officers are to pass orders under Section 148A(d) and, if necessary, issue a fresh notice under Section 148. All defenses available to the assessees and the Revenue under the Finance Act, 2021, and law remain available. This order applies pan-India and modifies similar judgments and orders passed by various High Courts.
The High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur, disposed of the batch of writ appeals and writ petitions in terms of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India & Others v. Ashish Agarwal. The Supreme Court had held that impugned Section 148 notices issued under the unamended Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which were the subject matter of writ petitions before various High Courts, shall be deemed to have been issued under Section 148A of the Act as substituted by the Finance Act, 2021, and construed or treated as show-cause notices in terms of Section 148A(b). The assessing officer was directed to provide information and material relied upon by the Revenue to the assessees within thirty days, allowing the assessees two weeks thereafter to reply. The requirement of conducting an enquiry under Section 148A(a) was dispensed with as a one-time measure. The assessing officers were then to pass orders under Section 148A(d) and subsequently issue notices under Section 148. All defenses available to the assessees and revenue were preserved. The Supreme Court's order was made applicable PAN INDIA and was passed in exercise of powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India.
The High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur, disposed of the batch of writ appeals and writ petitions in terms of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India & Others v. Ashish Agarwal. The Supreme Court had held that impugned Section 148 notices issued under the unamended Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which were the subject matter of writ petitions before various High Courts, shall be deemed to have been issued under Section 148A of the Act as substituted by the Finance Act, 2021, and construed or treated as show-cause notices in terms of Section 148A(b). The assessing officer was directed to provide information and material relied upon by the Revenue to the assessees within thirty days, allowing the assessees two weeks thereafter to reply. The requirement of conducting an enquiry under Section 148A(a) was dispensed with as a one-time measure. The assessing officers were then to pass orders under Section 148A(d) and subsequently issue notices under Section 148. All defenses available to the assessees and revenue were preserved. The Supreme Court's order was made applicable PAN INDIA and was passed in exercise of powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India.
The High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur, disposed of the batch of writ appeals and writ petitions in terms of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India & Others v. Ashish Agarwal. The Supreme Court had held that impugned Section 148 notices issued under the unamended Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which were the subject matter of writ petitions before various High Courts, shall be deemed to have been issued under Section 148A of the Act as substituted by the Finance Act, 2021, and construed or treated as show-cause notices in terms of Section 148A(b). The assessing officer was directed to provide information and material relied upon by the Revenue to the assessees within thirty days, allowing the assessees two weeks thereafter to reply. The requirement of conducting an enquiry under Section 148A(a) was dispensed with as a one-time measure. The assessing officers were then to pass orders under Section 148A(d) and subsequently issue notices under Section 148. All defenses available to the assessees and revenue were preserved. The Supreme Court's order was made applicable PAN INDIA and was passed in exercise of powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India.
The High Court held that in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India & Others v. Ashish Agarwal, no further hearing was required for the batch of writ appeals and writ petitions. The Court disposed of all these cases in terms of the Supreme Court's judgment. The Supreme Court's judgment, in essence, directed that impugned Section 148 notices issued under the unamended Act be deemed to have been issued under Section 148A of the Act as substituted by the Finance Act, 2021, and treated as show-cause notices. It also dispensed with the requirement of enquiry as a one-time measure and directed assessing officers to pass orders under Section 148A(d) before issuing a notice under Section 148. All defenses available to the assessees and revenue were preserved. The Supreme Court's order was made applicable PAN INDIA.
The High Court held that in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India & Others v. Ashish Agarwal, no further hearing was required for the batch of writ appeals and writ petitions. The Court disposed of all these cases in terms of the Supreme Court's judgment. The Supreme Court's judgment, in essence, directed that impugned Section 148 notices issued under the unamended Act be deemed to have been issued under Section 148A of the Act as substituted by the Finance Act, 2021, and treated as show-cause notices. It also dispensed with the requirement of enquiry as a one-time measure and directed assessing officers to pass orders under Section 148A(d) before issuing a notice under Section 148. All defenses available to the assessees and revenue were preserved. The Supreme Court's order was made applicable PAN INDIA.
The High Court held that in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India & Others v. Ashish Agarwal, no further hearing was required for the batch of writ appeals and writ petitions. The Court disposed of all these cases in terms of the Supreme Court's judgment. The Supreme Court's judgment, in essence, directed that impugned Section 148 notices issued under the unamended Act be deemed to have been issued under Section 148A of the Act as substituted by the Finance Act, 2021, and treated as show-cause notices. It also dispensed with the requirement of enquiry as a one-time measure and directed assessing officers to pass orders under Section 148A(d) before issuing a notice under Section 148. All defenses available to the assessees and revenue were preserved. The Supreme Court's order was made applicable PAN INDIA.
The High Court held that in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India & Others v. Ashish Agarwal, no further hearing was required for the batch of writ appeals and writ petitions. The Court disposed of all these cases in terms of the Supreme Court's judgment. The Supreme Court's judgment, in essence, directed that impugned Section 148 notices issued under the unamended Act be deemed to have been issued under Section 148A of the Act as substituted by the Finance Act, 2021, and treated as show-cause notices. It also dispensed with the requirement of enquiry as a one-time measure and directed assessing officers to pass orders under Section 148A(d) before issuing a notice under Section 148. All defenses available to the assessees and revenue were preserved. The Supreme Court's order was made applicable PAN INDIA.
The High Court held that in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India & Others v. Ashish Agarwal, no further hearing was required for the batch of writ appeals and writ petitions. The Court disposed of all these cases in terms of the Supreme Court's judgment. The Supreme Court's judgment, in essence, directed that impugned Section 148 notices issued under the unamended Act be deemed to have been issued under Section 148A of the Act as substituted by the Finance Act, 2021, and treated as show-cause notices. It also dispensed with the requirement of enquiry as a one-time measure and directed assessing officers to pass orders under Section 148A(d) before issuing a notice under Section 148. All defenses available to the assessees and revenue were preserved. The Supreme Court's order was made applicable PAN INDIA.
The High Court held that in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India & Others v. Ashish Agarwal, no further hearing was required for the batch of writ appeals and writ petitions. The Court disposed of all these cases in terms of the Supreme Court's judgment. The Supreme Court's judgment, in essence, directed that impugned Section 148 notices issued under the unamended Act be deemed to have been issued under Section 148A of the Act as substituted by the Finance Act, 2021, and treated as show-cause notices. It also dispensed with the requirement of enquiry as a one-time measure and directed assessing officers to pass orders under Section 148A(d) before issuing a notice under Section 148. All defenses available to the assessees and revenue were preserved. The Supreme Court's order was made applicable PAN INDIA.
The High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur, disposed of the batch of writ appeals and writ petitions in terms of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India & Others v. Ashish Agarwal. The Supreme Court held that impugned Section 148 notices issued under the unamended Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, which were subject to writ petitions before various High Courts, shall be deemed to have been issued under Section 148A of the Act as substituted by the Finance Act, 2021, and construed as show-cause notices under Section 148A(b). The assessing officer was directed to provide information and material to the assessees within thirty days, allowing the assessees two weeks thereafter to reply. The requirement of conducting an inquiry under Section 148A(a) was dispensed with as a one-time measure for notices issued under the unamended Section 148 from April 1, 2021, till the date of the order. Assessing officers were then to pass orders under Section 148A(d) and subsequently issue notices under Section 148 as substituted. All defenses available to the assessees and revenue were preserved. This order was made applicable PAN INDIA and was passed in exercise of powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to avoid further litigation.
The High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur, disposed of the batch of writ appeals and writ petitions in terms of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India & Others v. Ashish Agarwal. The Supreme Court held that impugned Section 148 notices issued under the unamended Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, which were subject to writ petitions before various High Courts, shall be deemed to have been issued under Section 148A of the Act as substituted by the Finance Act, 2021, and construed as show-cause notices under Section 148A(b). The assessing officer was directed to provide information and material to the assessees within thirty days, allowing the assessees two weeks thereafter to reply. The requirement of conducting an inquiry under Section 148A(a) was dispensed with as a one-time measure for notices issued under the unamended Section 148 from April 1, 2021, till the date of the order. Assessing officers were then to pass orders under Section 148A(d) and subsequently issue notices under Section 148 as substituted. All defenses available to the assessees and revenue were preserved. This order was made applicable PAN INDIA and was passed in exercise of powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to avoid further litigation.
The High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur, disposed of the batch of writ appeals and writ petitions in terms of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India & Others v. Ashish Agarwal. The Supreme Court held that impugned Section 148 notices issued under the unamended Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, which were subject to writ petitions before various High Courts, shall be deemed to have been issued under Section 148A of the Act as substituted by the Finance Act, 2021, and construed as show-cause notices under Section 148A(b). The assessing officer was directed to provide information and material to the assessees within thirty days, allowing the assessees two weeks thereafter to reply. The requirement of conducting an inquiry under Section 148A(a) was dispensed with as a one-time measure for notices issued under the unamended Section 148 from April 1, 2021, till the date of the order. Assessing officers were then to pass orders under Section 148A(d) and subsequently issue notices under Section 148 as substituted. All defenses available to the assessees and revenue were preserved. This order was made applicable PAN INDIA and was passed in exercise of powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to avoid further litigation.
The High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur, disposed of the batch of writ appeals and writ petitions in terms of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India & Others v. Ashish Agarwal. The Supreme Court held that impugned Section 148 notices issued under the unamended Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, which were subject to writ petitions before various High Courts, shall be deemed to have been issued under Section 148A of the Act as substituted by the Finance Act, 2021, and construed as show-cause notices under Section 148A(b). The assessing officer was directed to provide information and material to the assessees within thirty days, allowing the assessees two weeks thereafter to reply. The requirement of conducting an inquiry under Section 148A(a) was dispensed with as a one-time measure for notices issued under the unamended Section 148 from April 1, 2021, till the date of the order. Assessing officers were then to pass orders under Section 148A(d) and subsequently issue notices under Section 148 as substituted. All defenses available to the assessees and revenue were preserved. This order was made applicable PAN INDIA and was passed in exercise of powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to avoid further litigation.
The High Court held that in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India & Others v. Ashish Agarwal, no further hearing was required for the batch of writ appeals and writ petitions. The Court disposed of all these cases in terms of the Supreme Court's judgment. The Supreme Court's judgment, in essence, directed that impugned Section 148 notices issued under the unamended Act be deemed to have been issued under Section 148A of the Act as substituted by the Finance Act, 2021, and treated as show-cause notices. It also dispensed with the requirement of enquiry as a one-time measure and directed assessing officers to pass orders under Section 148A(d) before issuing a notice under Section 148. All defenses available to the assessees and revenue were preserved. The Supreme Court's order was made applicable PAN INDIA.
The High Court held that in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India & Others v. Ashish Agarwal, no further hearing was required for the batch of writ appeals and writ petitions. The Court disposed of all these cases in terms of the Supreme Court's judgment. The Supreme Court's judgment, in essence, directed that impugned Section 148 notices issued under the unamended Act be deemed to have been issued under Section 148A of the Act as substituted by the Finance Act, 2021, and treated as show-cause notices. It also dispensed with the requirement of enquiry as a one-time measure and directed assessing officers to pass orders under Section 148A(d) before issuing a notice under Section 148. All defenses available to the assessees and revenue were preserved. The Supreme Court's order was made applicable PAN INDIA.
The High Court held that in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India & Others v. Ashish Agarwal, no further hearing was required for the batch of writ appeals and writ petitions. The Court disposed of all these cases in terms of the Supreme Court's judgment. The Supreme Court's judgment, in essence, directed that impugned Section 148 notices issued under the unamended Act be deemed to have been issued under Section 148A of the Act as substituted by the Finance Act, 2021, and treated as show-cause notices. It also dispensed with the requirement of enquiry as a one-time measure and directed assessing officers to pass orders under Section 148A(d) before issuing a notice under Section 148. All defenses available to the assessees and revenue were preserved. The Supreme Court's order was made applicable PAN INDIA.
The High Court held that in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India & Others v. Ashish Agarwal, no further hearing was required for the batch of writ appeals and writ petitions. The Court disposed of all these cases in terms of the Supreme Court's judgment. The Supreme Court's judgment, in essence, directed that impugned Section 148 notices issued under the unamended Act be deemed to have been issued under Section 148A of the Act as substituted by the Finance Act, 2021, and treated as show-cause notices. It also dispensed with the requirement of enquiry as a one-time measure and directed assessing officers to pass orders under Section 148A(d) before issuing a notice under Section 148. All defenses available to the assessees and revenue were preserved. The Supreme Court's order was made applicable PAN INDIA.
The High Court noted that during the pendency of the writ petition, the respondents had finalized the assessment and issued a final assessment order. The revenue pointed out that the petitioner had an effective statutory remedy of appeal under Section 246 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. In light of these changed circumstances, the learned counsel for the petitioner sought permission to withdraw the writ petition with the liberty to challenge the final assessment order. The Court, therefore, dismissed the writ petition as withdrawn, granting the petitioner the liberty to pursue the statutory appeal against the final assessment order. No decision was made on the merits of the petitioner's original contentions regarding the non-consideration of objections.
The High Court held that the notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, are not liable to be interfered with at this stage. Regarding the non-supply of reasons and documents, the court noted that the petitioners had the opportunity to file objections, and the reasons and relevant documents were subsequently provided. The court also addressed the issue of the unsigned and undated sanction under Section 151, referencing Section 282-A of the Act. Sub-section (2) of Section 282-A states that a notice or document is deemed authenticated if the name and office of a designated income-tax authority are printed, stamped, or otherwise written thereon. Therefore, the sanction/approval, even without a digital signature and date, is considered an authenticated document. The court found no reason to interfere with the reassessment proceedings initiated by the department. The petitions were dismissed.
The High Court held that the notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, are not liable to be interfered with at this stage. Regarding the non-supply of reasons and documents, the court noted that the petitioners had the opportunity to file objections, and the reasons and relevant documents were subsequently provided. The court also addressed the issue of the unsigned and undated sanction under Section 151, referencing Section 282-A of the Act. Sub-section (2) of Section 282-A states that a notice or document is deemed authenticated if the name and office of a designated income-tax authority are printed, stamped, or otherwise written thereon. Therefore, the sanction/approval, even without a digital signature and date, is considered an authenticated document. The court found no reason to interfere with the reassessment proceedings initiated by the department. The petitions were dismissed.
The High Court held that at the stage of issuing a notice for reopening assessment under Section 148, the court's role is limited to examining if there is prima facie material for the department to reopen the case, not the sufficiency or correctness of that material. The petitioners have the opportunity to respond to the notice and raise all available grounds before the Assessing Officer. Regarding the authentication of the sanction under Section 151, the court referred to Section 282-A of the Act, which states that a document is deemed authenticated if the name and office of a designated income-tax authority are printed, stamped, or otherwise written thereon. The court found that the sanction/approval, in this case, would be deemed authenticated as per Section 282-A(2). Therefore, the court found no reason to interfere with the reassessment proceedings initiated by the respondent department. All three writ petitions were dismissed.
The High Court held that the grievance raised by the petitioner, concerning the non-supply of satisfaction recorded by the Assessing Officer who searched a third person, is a factual dispute. The Court opined that such factual disputes can be adequately considered and decided by the Appellate Authority. Given that an assessment order has already been passed during the pendency of the writ petition, the Court found that the petitioner possesses an efficacious alternative statutory remedy of filing an appeal under Section 246A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court was not inclined to entertain the writ petition in light of this alternative remedy and the fact that the cited case laws arose from appeals challenging assessment orders. The petitioner was granted liberty to approach the Appellate Authority, which was directed to consider and decide all grounds raised in the appeal strictly in accordance with law.
The High Court held that the grievance of the petitioner regarding the non-supply of satisfaction recorded by the Assessing Officer who searched the third person appears to be a factual dispute. Such factual disputes can be effectively considered and decided by the Appellate Authority. The Court noted that the case laws relied upon by the petitioner arose from appeals challenging assessment orders. Given that an assessment order has already been passed during the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner possesses an efficacious alternative statutory remedy of filing an appeal under Section 246A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Therefore, the Court was not inclined to entertain the writ petition. The petitioner was granted liberty to approach the Appellate Authority and raise all available grounds, which the Appellate Authority would consider in accordance with the law.
The High Court dismissed the writ petitions. On the issue of territorial jurisdiction, the Court noted that while the petitioner had applied for PAN migration, the PAN details in the department's official record had not been amended to reflect her Indore address by the date of the Section 148 notice. The acknowledgements of her income tax returns for assessment years 2018-19 and 2019-20, filed after her application for migration, still indicated the Assessing Officer as Circle-2(1), Bhilai. The Court found that the petitioner had not fully followed the prescribed procedure for PAN migration, specifically by not applying to the Assessing Officer of the new jurisdictional area. The judgments relied upon by the petitioner were distinguished as factually different. Regarding the sanction under Section 151, the Court observed that the Assessing Officer forwards documents including reasons recorded, and the issue of whether the sanction was with proper application of mind should be considered by the appropriate authority along with the records. However, the Court found no tenable ground to interdict the issuance of the notice under Section 148. The operative direction was the dismissal of the writ petitions.
The High Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the impugned notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and all consequent proceedings. The Court reasoned that the primary basis for issuing the Section 148 notice was the non-deduction of TDS under Section 194-IA. However, Section 194-IA explicitly applies to the transfer of immovable property 'other than agricultural land'. The AO himself had, in the assessment order under Section 143(3), considered the purchased property as agricultural land situated more than two kilometers from the municipality limits of Kanker. Therefore, the provision cited as the reason for reopening the assessment was not attracted to the facts of the case. The Court found that since the basis for issuing the notice was not applicable, the notice under Section 148 was not sustainable and liable to be quashed. No other reasons for reopening were recorded by the AO.
The High Court held that the writ petition was pre-mature and liable to be dismissed at the admission stage. The Court reasoned that the respondent department was authorized to issue the show-cause notice as per a Circular dated 10.2.2015, and the notice itself detailed the reasons for its issuance. The Court found that the petitioner had an efficacious remedy of approaching the issuing authority by submitting a reply and explaining their case. The Court distinguished the cases relied upon by the petitioner, stating they were on different facts. For instance, in Vicco Laboratories, the challenge was to reopen concluded issues, which was not the case here. The Court cited Supreme Court judgments in Trade Tax Officer and Oryx Fisheries Pvt. Ltd., emphasizing that while a show-cause notice must inform the recipient of charges, it does not preclude the authority from investigating and issuing such a notice. The Court found that the reasons for issuing the show-cause notice were discussed in detail, and the respondent had jurisdiction to investigate. Therefore, the petitioner's reliance on cases where the notice was quashed due to lack of jurisdiction or non-application of mind was deemed inapplicable. The Court concluded that the statutory functionaries should not be denuded of their powers to decide matters initially.
The High Court held that the writ petition was not maintainable. The primary challenge was to the initiation of proceedings under Section 148 based on the alleged non-issuance of a valid sanction order under Section 151. The Court perused the sanction order, which was placed on record, and found that it bore a DIN and document number, along with the name and designation of the authority granting the sanction. Therefore, the submission of the petitioner regarding the invalidity of the sanction due to lack of DIN was found to be without merit. The Court also noted that the respondents had pleaded in their reply that the case record was forwarded for approval under Section 151. The argument that the sanction was granted in a perfunctory manner was also not sustainable. Crucially, the Court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in *The Assistant Commissioner (supra)*, which held that while an alternative remedy is not an absolute bar to writ jurisdiction, a writ petition can only be entertained in exceptional circumstances such as a breach of fundamental rights, violation of principles of natural justice, excess of jurisdiction, or challenge to the vires of a statute. The Court found that none of these exceptions were established in the present case. Given the availability of the alternative remedy under Section 246A of the IT Act and the absence of exceptional circumstances, the Court was not inclined to entertain the writ petition. The petition was accordingly dismissed, with liberty granted to the petitioner to approach the appellate authority.