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

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