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 Limitation | 1,142 Days of Silence: Orissa High Court Rejects Litigant's Claim That His Lawyer Never Called SC/ST Act's Bar on Anticipatory Bail Does Not Apply When Complaint Fails to Make Out Prima Facie Case: Karnataka High Court Oral Agreement for Sale Cannot Be Dismissed for Want of Stamp or Registration: Calcutta High Court Upholds Injunction Finance Company's Own Legal Manager Cannot Appoint Arbitrator — Award Passed by Such Arbitrator Is Non-Est and Inexecutable: Andhra Pradesh High Court District Court Cannot Remand Charity Commissioner's Order: Bombay High Court Division Bench Settles Conflicting Views Framing "Points For Determination" Not Always Mandatory For First Appellate Courts: Allahabad High Court Delhi HC Finds Rape Conviction Cannot Stand On Testimony Where Victim Showed 'Unnatural Concern' For Her Alleged Attacker Limitation in Partition Suit Cannot Be Decided Without Evidence: Karnataka High Court Cheque Dishonour Accused Can Probabilise Defence Without Entering Witness Box — Through Cross-Examination And Marked Documents Alone: Madras High Court Contributory Negligence | No Driving Licence and Three on a Motorcycle Cannot Mean the Victim Caused the Accident: Rajasthan High Court LL.B Degree Cannot Be Ground to Deny Maintenance to Divorced Wife: Gujarat High Court Dried Leaves and Branches Are Not 'Ganja': Delhi High Court Grants Bail Under NDPS Act Family Court Judge Secretly Compared Handwriting Without Telling Wife, Then Punished Her Hesitation: Delhi High Court Quashes Divorce Decree Co-Owner Can Sell Undivided Share in Joint Property Without Consent of Other Co-owners — Sale Deed Valid to Extent of Transferor's Share: Orissa High Court Mandatory Safeguards of Section 42 NDPS Cannot Be Bypassed — Even When 1329 Kg of Hashish Is Seized: Gujarat High Court Affirms Acquittal GST Officer Froze Business Accounts Without Any Legal Basis, Ignored Taxpayer for Three Months: Bombay High Court Imposes Personal Costs Weapon Recovered, But No Forensic Report, No Independent Witness — Allahabad High Court Acquits Murder Accused

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