NDPS | Mentioning FIR Number On Memos Before Registration Makes the Entire Recovery Suspect: Himachal Pradesh High Court MACT | Once Deceased Is Proven To Be Skilled Worker, Deputy Commissioner's Wage Notification Is Applicable: P&H HC Bank’s Technical Excuses Can’t Override Employee’s Right to Ex Gratia Under Old Circulars: Bombay High Court Slams Canara Bank’s Rejection of Claim Once Worker Files Affidavit of Unemployment, Burden Shifts to Employer to Prove Gainful Employment: Delhi High Court Grants 17B Relief Despite 12-Year Delay Specific Relief Act | Readiness and Willingness Must Be Real and Continuous — Plaintiffs Cannot Withhold Funds and Blame the Seller: Bombay High Court Even If Claim Is Styled Under Section 163A, It Can Be Treated Under Section 166 If Negligence Is Pleaded And Higher Compensation Is Claimed: Supreme Court When Cheating Flows from One Criminal Conspiracy, the Law Does Not Demand 1852 FIRs: Supreme Court Upholds Single FIR in Multi-Crore Cheating Case Initiating Multiple FIRs on Same Facts is Impermissible: Supreme Court Quashes Parallel FIRs and Grants Bail Protection in Refund Case Limitation Act | Quasi-Judicial Bodies Cannot Invoke Section 5 Principles Without Express Statutory Grant: Supreme Court Arbitration Act | Commencement of Proceedings Triggered by Notice Receipt, Not Section 11 Filing: Supreme Court Strong and Cogent Evidence Must Exist at the Threshold to Deny Bail Under Section 319 CrPC: Supreme Court Appellate Court Under Section 37 Cannot Sit in Appeal Over Arbitral Award on Merits: Supreme Court Affidavit Ratifying Power of Attorney Cannot Be Disowned Later: Supreme Court Orders Specific Performance Despite Earlier Revocation Claims No Law Empowers a Corporation to Haunt a Retiree: Supreme Court Quashes Post-Retirement Disciplinary Action for Want of Jurisdiction Mere Expectation of Higher Bids Can't Justify Cancelling a Valid Auction: Supreme Court Quashes GDA’s Arbitrary Rejection of Highest Bidder Prolonged Incarceration Without Trial Violates Article 21, Even in Grave Economic Offences: Supreme Court Grants Bail to Arvind Dham in ₹673 Crore PMLA Case Article 14 | ‘Rules of the Game Cannot Be Changed Midstream’: Supreme Court Quashes Punjab’s Modified Sports Quota Policy for MBBS Admissions Rules of the Game Cannot Be Changed Midway: Supreme Court Quashes Bihar’s Retrospective Recruitment Amendment "Imaginary Ghost" - Court Permits Karthigai Deepam at Thiruparankundram ‘Deepathoon’: Madras High Court 353 IPC | Continuing Prosecution Against Citizens Despite Statutory Findings of Police Atrocities Is Abuse of Process: Kerala High Court Court Cannot Compel Plaintiff to Continue Suit Where No Liberty to File Fresh Suit is Sought: Bombay High Court Claim for Demurrage is Not a Crystallized Debt—Only an Unadjudicated Right to Sue: Andhra Pradesh High Court Declared Foreign Nationals Have No Right to Reside in India: Gauhati High Court Upholds Expulsion of Bangladeshi Woman Without Requiring Deportation Protocols

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