Readiness and Willingness Under Section 16(c) Is Not a Ritualistic Phrase — Plaintiff Must Prove It With Substance, Not Just Words: Karnataka High Court FIR in Disproportionate Assets Case Quashed: Patna High Court Slams SP for 'Non-Application of Mind' and 'Absence of Credible Source Information' Ownership of Vehicle Linked to Commercial Quantity of Heroin – Custodial Interrogation Necessary: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail under Section 482 BNSS Death Caused by Rash Driving Is Not a Private Dispute — No FIR Quashing on Basis of Compromise in Section 106 BNS Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court No Bank Can Override Court Orders: Rajasthan High Court Slams Axis Bank for Unauthorized Withdrawal from Court-Ordered FD" Indian Courts Cannot Invalidate Foreign Arbitral Awards Passed Under Foreign Law: Madhya Pradesh High Court Enforces Texas-Based Award Despite Commercial Court’s Contrary Decree Sudden Quarrel over Mound of Earth — Not Murder but Culpable Homicide: Allahabad High Court Eligibility Flows from Birth, Not a Certificate Date: Delhi High Court Strikes Down Rule Fixing Arbitrary Cut-Off for OBC-NCL Certificates in CAPF (AC) Recruitment Bar Under Order II Rule 2 CPC Cannot Be Invoked Where Specific Performance Was Legally Premature Due To Statutory Impediments: P&H High Court Once a Court Declares a Department an Industry Under Section 2(j), State Cannot Raise the Same Objection Again: Gujarat High Court Slams Repetitive Litigation by Irrigation Department “How Could Cheques Issued in 2020 Be Mentioned in a 2019 Contract?”: Delhi High Court Grants Injunction in Forged MOA Case, Slams Prima Facie Fabrication Calling Wife by Her Caste Name in Public Just Before Suicide is Immediate Cause of Self-Immolation: Madras High Court Upholds Husband’s Conviction Under Section 306 IPC Sole Testimony of Prosecutrix, If Credible, Is Enough to Convict: Delhi High Court Upholds Rape Conviction Cheque Issued as Security Still Attracts Section 138 NI Act If Liability Exists on Date of Presentation: Himachal Pradesh High Court No Work No Pay Is Not a Universal Rule: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dock Identification Without Prior TIP Is Absolutely Useless: P&H High Court Upholds Acquittal in Attempt to Murder Case Filing Forged Court Pleadings in Union Government’s Name is Criminal Contempt: Karnataka High Court Sentences Litigant to Jail Execution of Will Proved, But Probate Justly Denied Due to Concealment of Property Sale: Delhi High Court Mere Designation Doesn’t Establish Criminal Liability: Bombay High Court Quashes Proceedings Against ICICI Officials in Octroi Evasion Case Fraud on Power Voids the Order: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Karnataka BJP Leader R. Ashoka, Slams Politically Motivated Prosecution Cause of Fire Is Immaterial If Fire Itself Is Insured Peril: Supreme Court Rebukes Insurer’s Repudiation Dragging a Trained Army Officer Up 20 Steps Without Resistance? The Story Lacks Credence: Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal in Army Officer’s Murder Semen Stains Alone Do Not Prove Rape: Supreme Court Acquits Doctor Accused of Rape No Mortgage, No SARFAESI: Supreme Court Rules Against NEDFi, Says Recovery Action in Nagaland Without Security Agreement Was Illegal Parity Cannot Be Denied by Geography: Supreme Court Holds Jharkhand Bound by Patna HC's Judgment, Orders Pay Revision for Industries Officer Once Power Flows Continuously from a Synchronized Turbine, It Is No Longer Infirm: Supreme Court Orders TANGEDCO to Pay Fixed Charges to Penna Electricity Law of Limitation Binds All Equally, Including the State: Allahabad High Court Dismisses Review Petition with 5743 Days’ Delay Once Selected, All Are Equals: Allahabad High Court Slams State for Withholding Pay Protection From Later Batches of Ex-Servicemen Constables Non-Compliance With Section 42 of NDPS Act Is Fatal to Prosecution: Punjab & Haryana High Court Acquits Two Accused In 160 Kg Poppy Husk Case Unregistered Agreement Creating Right of Way Inadmissible in Evidence: Punjab & Haryana High Court Summary Decree in Partition Suit Denied: Unequivocal Admissions Absent, Full Trial Necessary: Delhi High Court No Court Can Allow Itself to Be Used as an Instrument of Fraud: Delhi High Court Exposes Forged Writ Petition Filed in Name of Unaware Citizen "Deliberate Wage Splitting to Evade Provident Fund Dues Is Illegal": Bombay High Court Restores PF Authority's 7A Order Against Saket College and Centrum Direct Anti-Suit Injunction in Matrimonial Dispute Set Aside: Calcutta High Court Refuses to Stall UK Divorce Proceedings Filed by Wife

Completed Assessments Cannot Be Reopened Based on Same Grounds Without Change in Facts: Delhi High Court Quashes Reassessment Under Section 148

14 October 2024 4:38 PM

By: sayum


Delhi High Court in the case of Satish Chand Jain vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 52(1), Delhi & Anr., quashed the reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for AY 2014-15. The court found that the reopening of already concluded assessments, based on the same facts, was invalid. This ruling clarifies the legal limits on reopening assessments and the application of the Supreme Court’s judgment in Union of India vs. Ashish Agarwal.

The petitioner, Satish Chand Jain, had filed his tax return for AY 2014-15 declaring an income of ₹2.29 crores. The case was initially assessed under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, and a reassessment was conducted under Section 147, which concluded on March 30, 2022, increasing the assessed income to ₹5.43 crores. The reassessment was based on information alleging that the petitioner had benefited from ₹3.07 crores through misuse of the NSEL Exchange platform.

However, on June 2, 2022, another show cause notice was issued under Section 148A(b), proposing further reassessment on the same grounds as before, which the petitioner challenged.

The central legal issue was whether the reassessment could be initiated again under Section 148, given that a similar reassessment had already been completed for the same assessment year based on the same facts. The respondent relied on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Union of India vs. Ashish Agarwal to justify reopening the assessment.

The petitioner argued that such reassessment violated principles of finality in tax proceedings and would result in double taxation.

The High Court, referencing its earlier decision in Anindita Sengupta vs. ACIT, ruled that once an assessment is concluded, it cannot be reopened on the same grounds without any new facts or material. The court rejected the respondents' interpretation of the Ashish Agarwal judgment, clarifying that it does not mandate reopening of completed assessments but only addresses pending reassessments under the old law.

The court emphasized that reopening a concluded assessment based on identical facts would not only lead to double addition but also violate the principles established in law regarding finality of assessments.

The Delhi High Court allowed the writ petition, quashing the order dated July 19, 2022, under Section 148A(d), and the consequent notice under Section 148. The court reaffirmed that completed assessments cannot be reopened without valid justification or new information.

Date of Decision: September 11, 2024

Satish Chand Jain vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 52(1), Delhi & Anr.​.

Latest Legal News