Marumakkathayam Law | Partition Is An Act By Which The Nature Of The Property Is Changed, Reflecting An Alteration In Ownership: Supreme Court Motor Accident Claim | Compensation Must Aim To Restore, As Far As Possible, What Has Been Irretrievably Lost: Supreme Court Awards Rs. 1.02 Crore Personal Criticism Of Judges Or Recording Findings On Their Conduct In Judgments Must Be Avoided: Supreme Court Efficiency In Arbitral Proceedings Is Integral To Effective Dispute Resolution. Courts Must Ensure That Arbitral Processes Reach Their Logical End: Supreme Court Onus Lies On The Propounder To Remove All Suspicious Circumstances Surrounding A Will To The Satisfaction Of The Court: Calcutta High Court Deeds of Gift Not Governed by Section 22-B of Registration Act: Andhra Pradesh High Court Testimony Of  Injured Witness Carries A Built-In Guarantee Of Truthfulness: Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds Conviction for Attempted Murder POCSO | Conviction Cannot Be Sustained Without Conclusive Proof Of Minority - Burden Lies On The Prosecution: Telangana High Court Credible Eyewitness Account, Supported By Forensic Corroboration, Creates An Unassailable Chain Of Proof That Withstands Scrutiny: Punjab and Haryana High Court Jammu & Kashmir High Court Grants Bail to Schizophrenic Mother Accused of Murdering Infant Son IT Act | Ambiguity in statutory notices undermines the principles of natural justice: Delhi High Court Dismisses Revenue Appeals Gauhati High Court Upholds Conviction Under NDPS Act: Procedural Lapses Insufficient to Overturn Case Himachal Pradesh High Court Acquits Murder Accused, Points to Possible Suicide Pact in "Tragic Love Affair" Tampering With Historical Documents To Support A Caste Claim Strikes At The Root Of Public Trust And Cannot Be Tolerated: Bombay High Court Offense Impacts Society as a Whole: Madras High Court Denies Bail in Cyber Harassment Case Custody disputes must be resolved in appropriate forums, and courts cannot intervene beyond legal frameworks in the guise of habeas corpus jurisdiction: Kerala High Court Insubordination Is A Contagious Malady In Any Employment And More So In Public Service : Karnataka High Court imposes Rs. 10,000 fine on Tribunal staff for frivolous petition A Show Cause Notice Issued Without Jurisdiction Cannot Withstand Judicial Scrutiny: AP High Court Sets Aside Rs. 75 Lakh Stamp Duty Demand Timely Action is Key: P&H HC Upholds Lawful Retirement at 58 for Class-III Employees Writ Jurisdiction Under Article 226 Not Applicable to Civil Court Orders: Patna High Court Uttarakhand High Court Dissolves Marriage Citing Irretrievable Breakdown, Acknowledges Cruelty Due to Prolonged Separation Prosecution Must Prove Common Object For An Unlawful Assembly - Conviction Cannot Rest On Assumptions: Telangana High Court

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.​.

Similar News