1. S. S. Gadgil v. Lal & Co.

53 ITR 231Supreme Court of India1964#621 most cited

What is 1. S. S. Gadgil v. Lal & Co. authority for?

Income-tax assessment proceedings are administrative in nature, not civil disputes or judicial proceedings between contesting parties. Income-tax authorities act as administrative bodies to estimate income and assess tax, and the proper service of notice within the limitation period is foundational for reassessment jurisdiction.

158

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,421 Indian tax judgments — from 2002 to 2026.

Also referred to as

S. S. Gadgil v. Lal & Co. · income tax assessment · administrative proceedings · not civil dispute · Section 147 · Section 148 · Section 149 · service of notice · limitation period · reassessment jurisdiction

Sections most often in play

Section 147Section 148Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 142(1)Section 149Section 143(2)Section 150

Issues it is cited on

undisclosed foreign income and assetssection 149(1)(c)section 4(2)section 201(3)section 158basection 150(1)section 150section 150(2)unexplained jewellerysection 18section 70section 33(4)

Judgments citing 1. S. S. Gadgil v. Lal & Co.

Smt. Manjulaben B. Patel, Baroda vs. The Dy.CIT. Central Circle-1, Baroda

ITA 1911/AHD/2019[2006-07]Status: HeardITAT Ahmedabad10 Sept 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 132

…e AO to reopen the assessments which had already become time barred under the earlier provision, prior to such amendment coming into force. He placed reliance on following decisions in support of this legal proposition: 1. S. S. Gadgil vs. Lal & Co. - (1964) 53 ITR 231 (SC); 2. J. P. Jani vs. Induprasad D. Bhatt - (1969) 72 ITR 595 (SC); 3. K M Sharma vs. ITO - (2002) 254 ITR 772 (SC); 4. Varkey Jacob v. CIT (2005) 275 ITR 146 (Ker) 5. C. B. Richards Ellis Mauritius Ltd. - (2021) 21 taxmann.com 535 (Del); 6. Tata Teleservices vs. UOI- (2016) 385 ITR 497 (Guj); 7. Brahm Dutt vs. ACIT - (2018) 100 taxmann.com 324…

Smt. Manjulaben B. Patel, Baroda vs. The Dy.CIT. Central Circle-1, Baroda

ITA 1910/AHD/2019[2005-06]Status: HeardITAT Ahmedabad10 Sept 2024AY 2005-06

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 132

…e AO to reopen the assessments which had already become time barred under the earlier provision, prior to such amendment coming into force. He placed reliance on following decisions in support of this legal proposition: 1. S. S. Gadgil vs. Lal & Co. - (1964) 53 ITR 231 (SC); 2. J. P. Jani vs. Induprasad D. Bhatt - (1969) 72 ITR 595 (SC); 3. K M Sharma vs. ITO - (2002) 254 ITR 772 (SC); 4. Varkey Jacob v. CIT (2005) 275 ITR 146 (Ker) 5. C. B. Richards Ellis Mauritius Ltd. - (2021) 21 taxmann.com 535 (Del); 6. Tata Teleservices vs. UOI- (2016) 385 ITR 497 (Guj); 7. Brahm Dutt vs. ACIT - (2018) 100 taxmann.com 324…

Smt. Manjulaben B. Patel, Baroda vs. The Dy.CIT. Central Circle-1, Baroda

ITA 1909/AHD/2019[2004-05]Status: HeardITAT Ahmedabad10 Sept 2024AY 2004-05

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 132

…e AO to reopen the assessments which had already become time barred under the earlier provision, prior to such amendment coming into force. He placed reliance on following decisions in support of this legal proposition: 1. S. S. Gadgil vs. Lal & Co. - (1964) 53 ITR 231 (SC); 2. J. P. Jani vs. Induprasad D. Bhatt - (1969) 72 ITR 595 (SC); 3. K M Sharma vs. ITO - (2002) 254 ITR 772 (SC); 4. Varkey Jacob v. CIT (2005) 275 ITR 146 (Ker) 5. C. B. Richards Ellis Mauritius Ltd. - (2021) 21 taxmann.com 535 (Del); 6. Tata Teleservices vs. UOI- (2016) 385 ITR 497 (Guj); 7. Brahm Dutt vs. ACIT - (2018) 100 taxmann.com 324…

Smt. Manjulaben B. Patel, Baroda vs. The Dy.CIT. Central Circle-1, Baroda

ITA 1908/AHD/2019[2003-04]Status: HeardITAT Ahmedabad10 Sept 2024AY 2003-04

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 132

…e AO to reopen the assessments which had already become time barred under the earlier provision, prior to such amendment coming into force. He placed reliance on following decisions in support of this legal proposition: 1. S. S. Gadgil vs. Lal & Co. - (1964) 53 ITR 231 (SC); 2. J. P. Jani vs. Induprasad D. Bhatt - (1969) 72 ITR 595 (SC); 3. K M Sharma vs. ITO - (2002) 254 ITR 772 (SC); 4. Varkey Jacob v. CIT (2005) 275 ITR 146 (Ker) 5. C. B. Richards Ellis Mauritius Ltd. - (2021) 21 taxmann.com 535 (Del); 6. Tata Teleservices vs. UOI- (2016) 385 ITR 497 (Guj); 7. Brahm Dutt vs. ACIT - (2018) 100 taxmann.com 324…

Smt. Manjulaben B. Patel, Baroda vs. The Dy.CIT. Central Circle-1, Baroda

ITA 1907/AHD/2019[2002-03]Status: HeardITAT Ahmedabad10 Sept 2024AY 2002-03

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 132

…e AO to reopen the assessments which had already become time barred under the earlier provision, prior to such amendment coming into force. He placed reliance on following decisions in support of this legal proposition: 1. S. S. Gadgil vs. Lal & Co. - (1964) 53 ITR 231 (SC); 2. J. P. Jani vs. Induprasad D. Bhatt - (1969) 72 ITR 595 (SC); 3. K M Sharma vs. ITO - (2002) 254 ITR 772 (SC); 4. Varkey Jacob v. CIT (2005) 275 ITR 146 (Ker) 5. C. B. Richards Ellis Mauritius Ltd. - (2021) 21 taxmann.com 535 (Del); 6. Tata Teleservices vs. UOI- (2016) 385 ITR 497 (Guj); 7. Brahm Dutt vs. ACIT - (2018) 100 taxmann.com 324…

Smt. Manjulaben B. Patel, Baroda vs. The Dy.CIT. Central Circle-1, Baroda

ITA 1906/AHD/2019[2001-02]Status: HeardITAT Ahmedabad10 Sept 2024AY 2001-02

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 132

…e AO to reopen the assessments which had already become time barred under the earlier provision, prior to such amendment coming into force. He placed reliance on following decisions in support of this legal proposition: 1. S. S. Gadgil vs. Lal & Co. - (1964) 53 ITR 231 (SC); 2. J. P. Jani vs. Induprasad D. Bhatt - (1969) 72 ITR 595 (SC); 3. K M Sharma vs. ITO - (2002) 254 ITR 772 (SC); 4. Varkey Jacob v. CIT (2005) 275 ITR 146 (Ker) 5. C. B. Richards Ellis Mauritius Ltd. - (2021) 21 taxmann.com 535 (Del); 6. Tata Teleservices vs. UOI- (2016) 385 ITR 497 (Guj); 7. Brahm Dutt vs. ACIT - (2018) 100 taxmann.com 324…

Smt. Manjulaben B. Patel, Baroda vs. The Dy.CIT. Central Circle-1, Baroda

ITA 1905/AHD/2019[2000-01]Status: HeardITAT Ahmedabad10 Sept 2024AY 2000-01

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 132

…e AO to reopen the assessments which had already become time barred under the earlier provision, prior to such amendment coming into force. He placed reliance on following decisions in support of this legal proposition: 1. S. S. Gadgil vs. Lal & Co. - (1964) 53 ITR 231 (SC); 2. J. P. Jani vs. Induprasad D. Bhatt - (1969) 72 ITR 595 (SC); 3. K M Sharma vs. ITO - (2002) 254 ITR 772 (SC); 4. Varkey Jacob v. CIT (2005) 275 ITR 146 (Ker) 5. C. B. Richards Ellis Mauritius Ltd. - (2021) 21 taxmann.com 535 (Del); 6. Tata Teleservices vs. UOI- (2016) 385 ITR 497 (Guj); 7. Brahm Dutt vs. ACIT - (2018) 100 taxmann.com 324…

Manjulaben Bipinbhai Patel Legal Heir of Late Bipinbhai P.Patel, Baroda vs. The Dy.CIT. Central Circle-1, Baroda

ITA 1904/AHD/2019[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Ahmedabad10 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 132

…e AO to reopen the assessments which had already become time barred under the earlier provision, prior to such amendment coming into force. He placed reliance on following decisions in support of this legal proposition: 1. S. S. Gadgil vs. Lal & Co. - (1964) 53 ITR 231 (SC); 2. J. P. Jani vs. Induprasad D. Bhatt - (1969) 72 ITR 595 (SC); 3. K M Sharma vs. ITO - (2002) 254 ITR 772 (SC); 4. Varkey Jacob v. CIT (2005) 275 ITR 146 (Ker) 5. C. B. Richards Ellis Mauritius Ltd. - (2021) 21 taxmann.com 535 (Del); 6. Tata Teleservices vs. UOI- (2016) 385 ITR 497 (Guj); 7. Brahm Dutt vs. ACIT - (2018) 100 taxmann.com 324…

Manjulaben Bipinbhai Patel Legal Heir of Late Bipinbhai P.Patel, Baroda vs. The Dy.CIT. Central Circle-1, Baroda

ITA 1903/AHD/2019[2009-10]Status: HeardITAT Ahmedabad10 Sept 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 132

…e AO to reopen the assessments which had already become time barred under the earlier provision, prior to such amendment coming into force. He placed reliance on following decisions in support of this legal proposition: 1. S. S. Gadgil vs. Lal & Co. - (1964) 53 ITR 231 (SC); 2. J. P. Jani vs. Induprasad D. Bhatt - (1969) 72 ITR 595 (SC); 3. K M Sharma vs. ITO - (2002) 254 ITR 772 (SC); 4. Varkey Jacob v. CIT (2005) 275 ITR 146 (Ker) 5. C. B. Richards Ellis Mauritius Ltd. - (2021) 21 taxmann.com 535 (Del); 6. Tata Teleservices vs. UOI- (2016) 385 ITR 497 (Guj); 7. Brahm Dutt vs. ACIT - (2018) 100 taxmann.com 324…

Manjulaben Bipinbhai Patel Legal Heir of Late Bipinbhai P.Patel, Baroda vs. The Dy.CIT. Central Circle-1, Baroda

ITA 1902/AHD/2019[2008-09]Status: HeardITAT Ahmedabad10 Sept 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 132

…e AO to reopen the assessments which had already become time barred under the earlier provision, prior to such amendment coming into force. He placed reliance on following decisions in support of this legal proposition: 1. S. S. Gadgil vs. Lal & Co. - (1964) 53 ITR 231 (SC); 2. J. P. Jani vs. Induprasad D. Bhatt - (1969) 72 ITR 595 (SC); 3. K M Sharma vs. ITO - (2002) 254 ITR 772 (SC); 4. Varkey Jacob v. CIT (2005) 275 ITR 146 (Ker) 5. C. B. Richards Ellis Mauritius Ltd. - (2021) 21 taxmann.com 535 (Del); 6. Tata Teleservices vs. UOI- (2016) 385 ITR 497 (Guj); 7. Brahm Dutt vs. ACIT - (2018) 100 taxmann.com 324…

Manjulaben Bipinbhai Patel Legal Heir of Late Bipinbhai P.Patel, Baroda vs. The Dy.CIT. Central Circle-1, Baroda

ITA 1901/AHD/2019[2007-08]Status: HeardITAT Ahmedabad10 Sept 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 132

…e AO to reopen the assessments which had already become time barred under the earlier provision, prior to such amendment coming into force. He placed reliance on following decisions in support of this legal proposition: 1. S. S. Gadgil vs. Lal & Co. - (1964) 53 ITR 231 (SC); 2. J. P. Jani vs. Induprasad D. Bhatt - (1969) 72 ITR 595 (SC); 3. K M Sharma vs. ITO - (2002) 254 ITR 772 (SC); 4. Varkey Jacob v. CIT (2005) 275 ITR 146 (Ker) 5. C. B. Richards Ellis Mauritius Ltd. - (2021) 21 taxmann.com 535 (Del); 6. Tata Teleservices vs. UOI- (2016) 385 ITR 497 (Guj); 7. Brahm Dutt vs. ACIT - (2018) 100 taxmann.com 324…

Manjulaben Bipinbhai Patel Legal Heir of Late Bipinbhai P.Patel, Baroda vs. The Dy.CIT. Central Circle-1, Baroda

ITA 1900/AHD/2019[2006-07]Status: HeardITAT Ahmedabad10 Sept 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 132

…e AO to reopen the assessments which had already become time barred under the earlier provision, prior to such amendment coming into force. He placed reliance on following decisions in support of this legal proposition: 1. S. S. Gadgil vs. Lal & Co. - (1964) 53 ITR 231 (SC); 2. J. P. Jani vs. Induprasad D. Bhatt - (1969) 72 ITR 595 (SC); 3. K M Sharma vs. ITO - (2002) 254 ITR 772 (SC); 4. Varkey Jacob v. CIT (2005) 275 ITR 146 (Ker) 5. C. B. Richards Ellis Mauritius Ltd. - (2021) 21 taxmann.com 535 (Del); 6. Tata Teleservices vs. UOI- (2016) 385 ITR 497 (Guj); 7. Brahm Dutt vs. ACIT - (2018) 100 taxmann.com 324…

Manjulaben Bipinbhai Patel Legal Heir of Late Bipinbhai P.Patel, Baroda vs. The Dy.CIT. Central Circle-1, Baroda

ITA 1899/AHD/2019[2005-06]Status: HeardITAT Ahmedabad10 Sept 2024AY 2005-06

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 132

…e AO to reopen the assessments which had already become time barred under the earlier provision, prior to such amendment coming into force. He placed reliance on following decisions in support of this legal proposition: 1. S. S. Gadgil vs. Lal & Co. - (1964) 53 ITR 231 (SC); 2. J. P. Jani vs. Induprasad D. Bhatt - (1969) 72 ITR 595 (SC); 3. K M Sharma vs. ITO - (2002) 254 ITR 772 (SC); 4. Varkey Jacob v. CIT (2005) 275 ITR 146 (Ker) 5. C. B. Richards Ellis Mauritius Ltd. - (2021) 21 taxmann.com 535 (Del); 6. Tata Teleservices vs. UOI- (2016) 385 ITR 497 (Guj); 7. Brahm Dutt vs. ACIT - (2018) 100 taxmann.com 324…

Manjulaben Bipinbhai Patel Legal Heir of Late Bipinbhai P.Patel, Baroda vs. The Dy.CIT. Central Circle-1, Baroda

ITA 1898/AHD/2019[2004-05]Status: HeardITAT Ahmedabad10 Sept 2024AY 2004-05

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 132

…e AO to reopen the assessments which had already become time barred under the earlier provision, prior to such amendment coming into force. He placed reliance on following decisions in support of this legal proposition: 1. S. S. Gadgil vs. Lal & Co. - (1964) 53 ITR 231 (SC); 2. J. P. Jani vs. Induprasad D. Bhatt - (1969) 72 ITR 595 (SC); 3. K M Sharma vs. ITO - (2002) 254 ITR 772 (SC); 4. Varkey Jacob v. CIT (2005) 275 ITR 146 (Ker) 5. C. B. Richards Ellis Mauritius Ltd. - (2021) 21 taxmann.com 535 (Del); 6. Tata Teleservices vs. UOI- (2016) 385 ITR 497 (Guj); 7. Brahm Dutt vs. ACIT - (2018) 100 taxmann.com 324…

Manjulaben Bipinbhai Patel Legal Heir of Late Bipinbhai P.Patel, Baroda vs. The Dy.CIT. Central Circle-1, Baroda

ITA 1897/AHD/2019[2003-04]Status: HeardITAT Ahmedabad10 Sept 2024AY 2003-04

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 132

…e AO to reopen the assessments which had already become time barred under the earlier provision, prior to such amendment coming into force. He placed reliance on following decisions in support of this legal proposition: 1. S. S. Gadgil vs. Lal & Co. - (1964) 53 ITR 231 (SC); 2. J. P. Jani vs. Induprasad D. Bhatt - (1969) 72 ITR 595 (SC); 3. K M Sharma vs. ITO - (2002) 254 ITR 772 (SC); 4. Varkey Jacob v. CIT (2005) 275 ITR 146 (Ker) 5. C. B. Richards Ellis Mauritius Ltd. - (2021) 21 taxmann.com 535 (Del); 6. Tata Teleservices vs. UOI- (2016) 385 ITR 497 (Guj); 7. Brahm Dutt vs. ACIT - (2018) 100 taxmann.com 324…

Manjulaben Bipinbhai Patel Legal Heir of Late Bipinbhai P.Patel, Baroda vs. The Dy.CIT. Central Circle-1, Baroda

ITA 1896/AHD/2019[2002-03]Status: HeardITAT Ahmedabad10 Sept 2024AY 2002-03

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 132

…e AO to reopen the assessments which had already become time barred under the earlier provision, prior to such amendment coming into force. He placed reliance on following decisions in support of this legal proposition: 1. S. S. Gadgil vs. Lal & Co. - (1964) 53 ITR 231 (SC); 2. J. P. Jani vs. Induprasad D. Bhatt - (1969) 72 ITR 595 (SC); 3. K M Sharma vs. ITO - (2002) 254 ITR 772 (SC); 4. Varkey Jacob v. CIT (2005) 275 ITR 146 (Ker) 5. C. B. Richards Ellis Mauritius Ltd. - (2021) 21 taxmann.com 535 (Del); 6. Tata Teleservices vs. UOI- (2016) 385 ITR 497 (Guj); 7. Brahm Dutt vs. ACIT - (2018) 100 taxmann.com 324…

Manjulaben Bipinbhai Patel Legal Heir of Late Bipinbhai P.Patel, Baroda vs. The Dy.CIT. Central Circle-1, Baroda

ITA 1895/AHD/2019[2001-02]Status: HeardITAT Ahmedabad10 Sept 2024AY 2001-02

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 132

…e AO to reopen the assessments which had already become time barred under the earlier provision, prior to such amendment coming into force. He placed reliance on following decisions in support of this legal proposition: 1. S. S. Gadgil vs. Lal & Co. - (1964) 53 ITR 231 (SC); 2. J. P. Jani vs. Induprasad D. Bhatt - (1969) 72 ITR 595 (SC); 3. K M Sharma vs. ITO - (2002) 254 ITR 772 (SC); 4. Varkey Jacob v. CIT (2005) 275 ITR 146 (Ker) 5. C. B. Richards Ellis Mauritius Ltd. - (2021) 21 taxmann.com 535 (Del); 6. Tata Teleservices vs. UOI- (2016) 385 ITR 497 (Guj); 7. Brahm Dutt vs. ACIT - (2018) 100 taxmann.com 324…

Manjulaben Bipinbhai Patel Legal Heir of Late Bipinbhai P.Patel, Baroda vs. The Dy.CIT. Central Circle-1, Baroda

ITA 1894/AHD/2019[2000-01]Status: HeardITAT Ahmedabad10 Sept 2024AY 2000-01

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 132

…e AO to reopen the assessments which had already become time barred under the earlier provision, prior to such amendment coming into force. He placed reliance on following decisions in support of this legal proposition: 1. S. S. Gadgil vs. Lal & Co. - (1964) 53 ITR 231 (SC); 2. J. P. Jani vs. Induprasad D. Bhatt - (1969) 72 ITR 595 (SC); 3. K M Sharma vs. ITO - (2002) 254 ITR 772 (SC); 4. Varkey Jacob v. CIT (2005) 275 ITR 146 (Ker) 5. C. B. Richards Ellis Mauritius Ltd. - (2021) 21 taxmann.com 535 (Del); 6. Tata Teleservices vs. UOI- (2016) 385 ITR 497 (Guj); 7. Brahm Dutt vs. ACIT - (2018) 100 taxmann.com 324…

Krishnamoorthy Hariobhaskar, Tiruppur vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Tiruppur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1506/CHNY/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 May 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1506/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 V. Shri Krishnamoorthy Haribhaskar, The Income Tax Officer, 35/11, Poochakkadu, 2Nd Street, Ward-2(1), Mangalam Road, Tirupur-641 604. Tirupur. [Pan: Abkph 9735 L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri T.S.LakshmiFor Respondent: Shri Praveen, JCIT
Section 139Section 148Section 148ASection 149

…erstwhile Act, on the date when the amended Act came into force i.e. 01.04.2021 [refer ratio of the Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in CIT v. Onkarmal Meghraj, HUF reported in [1974] 93 ITR 233 (SC) and ITO vs. Induprasad Devshanker Bhatt. reported in [1969] 72 ITR 595 (SC)]. In the present case, it is noted that for AY 2013-14, assessee had a vested right as on 31.03.2020 not to be disturbed by AO by issuance of notice u/s.148 of erstwhile Act and that right of assessee cannot be taken away. Thus, based on the well settled position of law, in this regard, the notice issued on 27.03.2021 u/s.148 of the Act, was…

Jesudason Biji, Chennai vs. Office of Income Tax Officer Int. Taxn Ward1(1), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 567/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri M.V.Swaroop, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT
Section 119(2)(b)Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 54ESection 54F

…erstwhile Act, on the date when the amended Act came into force i.e. 01.04.2021 [refer ratio of the Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in CIT v. Onkarmal Meghraj, HUF reported in [1974] 93 ITR 233 (SC) and ITO vs. Induprasad Devshanker Bhatt. reported in [1969] 72 ITR 595 (SC)]. In the present case, it is noted that for AY 2014-15, assessee had a vested right as on 31.03.2021 not to be disturbed by AO by issuance of notice u/s.148 of erstwhile Act and that right of assessee cannot be taken away, thus, based on the well settled position of law, in this regard, the notice issued on 30.06.2021 u/s.148 of the Act, was…