Detailed Description Of Concealment Not Mandatory Under Section 27 Evidence Act: Bombay High Court Upholds Murder Conviction Child Is Not A Pawn To Prove Mother's Adultery: Andhra Pradesh High Court Dismisses Husband's DNA Test Petition In Desertion Divorce Case Shareholder Ratification Cannot Cure Fraud Under SEBI's PFUTP Regulations: Supreme Court Restores Rs. 70 Lakh Penalty on Company When High Court Judges Themselves Disagree on the Answer, Can a Law Graduate Be Penalised for Getting It Wrong? Supreme Court Says No Superficial Burns Don't Mean Silence: Supreme Court Explains Why 80-90% Burn Victim Could Still Make a Valid Dying Declaration Daughter's Eyewitness Account, Dying Declaration Seal Husband's Fate: Supreme Court Upholds Life Sentence for Wife-Burning Murder Supreme Court Rejects Rs. 106 Crore Compensation Claim; Directs SECL to Supply Coal to Prakash Industries at 2014 or 2019 Prices for Wrongfully Suspended Period Section 319 CrPC | Trial Court Cannot Conduct Mini Trial While Deciding Application to Summon Additional Accused: Supreme Court Accused Can't Be Left Without Documents To Defend: Calcutta High Court Directs Adjudicating Authority To First Decide Whether Complete 'Relied Upon Documents' Were Served In PMLA Proceedings Husband Who Took Voluntary Retirement at 47 Cannot Escape Maintenance Duty: Delhi High Court Upholds ₹10,000/Month to Wife and Daughter Cannot Claim Monopoly Over a Deity's Name: Gujarat High Court Dismisses Trademark Injunction Against 'Kshetrapal Construction' Eviction Appeal Cannot Require Actual Surrender Of Possession, Symbolic Possession Sufficient: J&K High Court Amendment Introducing Time-Barred Relief And Changing Nature Of Suit Cannot Be Allowed: Karnataka High Court Counter Claim Is An Independent Suit: MP High Court Rules Properties Beyond Territorial Jurisdiction Cannot Be Dragged Into Counter Claim Co-Sharer Cannot Be Bound By Passage Carved Out Without His Consent: Punjab & Haryana High Court Modifies Concurrent Decrees ‘Prima Facie True’ Is Enough to Deny Liberty: Punjab & Haryana High Court Refuses Bail in Babbar Khalsa Terror Conspiracy Case High Court Cannot Quash FIR for Forgery When Handwriting Expert's Report Is Still Awaited: Supreme Court Supreme Court Calls for Paternity Leave Law, Says Father's Absence in Child's Early Years Leaves a "Quiet Cost" That Lasts a Lifetime Three-Month Age Cap for Adoptive Mothers' Maternity Benefit Struck Down: Supreme Court Reads Down Section 60(4) of Social Security Code Bank Cannot Rely on Charter Party Agreement to Justify Remittance Contrary to Customer's Instructions: Supreme Court 19 Candidates Linked to Accused, Papers of Five Subjects Leaked: Allahabad High Court Upholds Cancellation of UP Assistant Professor Exam Result

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