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 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 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

Delhi High Court Quashes Reassessment Notice under Section 148 of Income-tax Act: Emphasizes on ‘Reason to Believe’ over ‘Reason to Suspect’”

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court has quashed the reassessment notice issued under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, against Saraswati Petrochem Pvt. Ltd. The decision, delivered by the bench comprising Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Girish Kathpalia, emphasizes the critical distinction between ‘reason to believe’ and ‘reason to suspect’ in initiating reassessment proceedings.

The court observed, "The sine qua non for triggering the assessment proceedings is not a ‘reason to suspect’ but a ‘reason to believe’ that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment.” This statement formed the crux of the ruling delivered on November 17, 2023, setting a precedent on the procedural rigor required for reassessment notices under the Income-tax Act.

In the case of W.P.(C) 10802/2018, the petitioner, Saraswati Petrochem Pvt. Ltd., challenged the issuance of a reassessment notice by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 22(3), regarding the Assessment Year 2011-12. The notice was based on the Assessing Officer’s belief that income had escaped assessment, a claim contested by the petitioner.

The High Court meticulously analyzed the facts and procedural aspects of the case. It was noted that the Assessing Officer (AO) had failed to furnish the ‘reason to believe’ document alongside the notice, a lapse rectified only after the petitioner’s repeated requests. The court underscored the importance of providing this key document to ensure transparency and fairness in the reassessment process.

Further highlighting procedural discrepancies, the court pointed out that the information relied upon by the AO was misaligned with the relevant assessment year and lacked concrete evidence to substantiate the belief that income had escaped assessment.

Advocates representing the petitioner, Ms. Rano Jain and her team, successfully argued that the reassessment was initiated based on mere suspicion, lacking tangible material necessary for such proceedings. On the other hand, Mr. Prashant Meharchandani, representing the respondent, contended that the notice was in line with legal requirements.

The ruling serves as a crucial reminder for tax authorities on the necessity of due diligence and adherence to legal principles when initiating reassessment proceedings. The judgement also reinforces the taxpayer’s rights to a fair and transparent assessment process.

The decision has been welcomed by legal experts and tax professionals, citing it as a benchmark for future reassessment cases under the Income-tax Act. The High Court’s emphasis on the legal principle that suspicion cannot form the basis for initiating reassessment proceedings has been particularly noted for its significance in upholding the rule of law in tax matters.

Date of Decision: 17 November 2023

SARASWATI  PETROCHEM PVT. LTD. VS INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 22(3)   

Latest Legal News