Limitation | Delay Condonation Cannot Be An Act Of Generosity: Supreme Court Refuses To Condone 31-Year Delay To Challenge Decree Sentence Suspension In Murder Cases Only Under Exceptional Circumstances; Presumption Of Innocence Erased Upon Conviction: Supreme Court Inquiry Commission Report Cannot Be Used For Disciplinary Action If Statutory Right To Cross-Examine Denied: Gauhati High Court Use Of Trademark On Website Accessible In India Constitutes Domestic Use, Geo-Blocking Mandatory For Territorial Restrictions: Delhi High Court Civil Court Jurisdiction To Interfere With DRT Proceedings Is Absolutely Barred Even For Third Parties: Madras High Court Adding a Prefix Can’t Erase Deceptive Similarity – Delhi High Court Orders Removal of ‘ARUN’ from Trademark ‘AiC ARUN’ Cannot Resile From Mediated Settlement After Taking Benefits: Supreme Court Quashes Wife's DV Case, Grants Divorce Absolute Indemnity Obligation Triggers Immediately Upon Court-Directed Deposit, Not On Final Appeal: Supreme Court Magistrate Directing Investigation Under Section 156(3) CrPC Only Requires Prima Facie Satisfaction Of Cognizable Offence: Supreme Court Cancellation Of Sale Deed Under Specific Relief Act Not A Pre-Condition To Initiate Criminal Case For Forgery: Supreme Court Amalgamated Company Cannot Claim Set-Off Of Predecessor's Losses Under Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act Without Specific Statutory Provision: Supreme Court Overlapping Split Chargesheets May Raise Double Jeopardy Concerns, Supreme Court Notes While Granting Bail To Former Jharkhand Minister Supreme Court Grants Bail To Convicted Ex-Jharkhand Minister Facing Overlapping Prosecutions From Split Chargesheets Electricity Act Appellate Authority Is A Quasi-Judicial Body Subject To High Court’s Supervisory Jurisdiction: Madhya Pradesh High Court Mere Discrepancy In Date Of Birth Across Certificates Doesn't Amount To Fraud If No Undue Advantage Is Derived: Allahabad High Court Interest Earned On Funds Temporarily Parked Pending Project Deployment Cannot Be Taxed As 'Income From Other Sources': Delhi High Court Reference Court Cannot Set Aside Collector's Award Or Remand Matter For Fresh Determination: Allahabad High Court Administrative Transfer Causing Revenue Loss Defies Court Process: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Ferry Ghat Handover Government Can Resume Leased Land For Public Purpose; 'Substantial Compliance' Of 60-Day Notice Sufficient: Kerala High Court Revenue Can't Cite Pending Litigation to Justify One Year of Adjudication Inaction: Karnataka High Court

Reassessment of Concluded Assessments Not Permissible Without New Information: Delhi High Court Curtails Tax Authority’s Reach

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


 

The Delhi High Court  pronounced a crucial verdict, holding that the Income Tax Department cannot reopen concluded assessments under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, absent new grounds or information, relying on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Union of India v. Ashish Agarwal. The reassessment notices issued to Ms. Akshita Jindal for the Assessment Year 2015-16 were declared invalid and subsequently quashed.

 

The focal point of the dispute was whether reassessment proceedings for a previously concluded assessment year could be reinitiated based on the apex court’s decision. The petitioner, Akshita Jindal, contended against the notices issued under Sections 148, 148A(b), and 148A(d) post her final assessment. The initial reassessment notice was followed by an order adding substantial amounts to the petitioner’s income citing undisclosed penny stock transactions.

 

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Yashwant Varma meticulously reviewed the legislative intent behind the reassessment provisions. Justice Kaurav clarified, “Reassessment proceedings already concluded cannot be re-opened based on the same information which was already assessed, under the cover of the Supreme Court’s Ashish Agarwal decision.”

Referencing Anindita Sengupta v. ACIT, the Court observed that the procedures stipulated by Ashish Agarwal applied strictly to ongoing, non-finalized proceedings, thus not extending to closed cases. The bench criticized the department’s reinitiation of proceedings on the same grounds as those addressed in the original final assessment order, marking it as a significant overreach.

 

 

The ruling underscores the judiciary’s stance on limiting retrospective reassessment unless new evidence or discrepancies are unearthed post the original assessment. The impugned notices and the order under Section 148A(d) were quashed, reinforcing the boundaries of lawful administrative action in tax reassessment cases.

Date of Decision: May 1, 2024

Akshita Jindal vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 54(1) Delhi & Ors

Latest Legal News