Inability To Trace Beneficiaries Cannot Defeat Or Postpone Compensation Disbursal: Supreme Court Directs High Court Suo Motu Proceedings Disability Pension | Mere Manifestation Of Disease During Military Service Without Causal Connection Is Not Sufficient For Entitlement: Supreme Court Prevention Of Corruption Act | Mere Recovery Of Tainted Money Without Proof Of Demand Cannot Sustain Conviction: Supreme Court Appointment Contrary To Statutory Requirements And Advertisement Terms Amounts To Fraud On Public: Supreme Court IT Act | Once Settlement Commission Admits Application Under Section 245C, Assessing Officer Loses Jurisdiction To Reopen Assessment Under Section 148: Supreme Court NDPS Act | Prosecution Must Establish Unbroken Chain Of Custody For Samples, Failure To Comply With Section 52-A Renders FSL Report Inadmissible: Supreme Court Section 180 BNSS | Investigating Officers Must Adopt Transparent Practices; DGP Should Consider Making Audio-Video Recording Of Witness Statements Mandatory: Allahabad High Court Rowdy Sheet Cannot Be Opened In A Mechanical Manner Based On Mere Pendency Of Two Criminal Cases: Andhra Pradesh High Court 'Surname Protection Under Section 35 Trade Marks Act Not Restricted To Natural Persons': Bombay High Court Allows Corporate Body To Use Family Name Circumstantial Evidence | Prosecution Must Prove Connectivity Between Accused And Crime, Mere 'Last Seen' Theory Insufficient: Calcutta High Court Section 482 BNSS | Criminal Prosecution Against Company Directors Cannot Be Quashed When Investigation Reveals Active Role Beyond Mere Designation: Delhi High Court Cannot Be Permitted To Patch Up Weak Points: Karnataka High Court Dismisses Belated Order 41 Rule 27 CPC Plea Order XXI Rule 90 CPC | Burden To Prove Material Irregularity Or Fraud In Court Auction Sale Lies Upon Judgment Debtor: Kerala High Court Departmental Instructions Not Being Mandatory, Non-Compliance Does Not Vitiate Enquiry If Guilt Is Proved By Other Cogent Evidence: Delhi High Court Doctrine Of Res Gestae | Hearsay Evidence Can Be Admissible If Statement Is Spontaneous And Contemporaneous With The Occurrence: Madras High Court Relatives Cannot Be Roped Into Matrimonial Disputes On The Basis Of Omnibus Allegations: Madhya Pradesh High Court Grants Discharge Victim In Private Complaint Case Entitled To File Appeal Against Acquittal Before Sessions Court U/S 372 CrPC: Punjab & Haryana High Court Section 58 BNSS | Detention Beyond 24 Hours Without Magistrate’s Authority Vitiates Remand, Entitles Accused To Bail: Orissa High Court Section 18 Limitation Act | Acknowledgement Of Loan In Promissory Note Extends Period Of Limitation For Entire Debt: Delhi High Court Section 138 NI Act | Existence Of Defence Founded On Disputed Facts Cannot Be Ground To Scuttle Cheque Bounce Prosecution At Inception: Punjab & Haryana 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