Facts of the Case

The petitioner, Logix Heights Private Limited, filed a writ petition challenging the notice dated 29.03.2025 issued under Section 148A(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the order dated 30.06.2025 passed under Section 148A(3), and the consequent notice issued under Section 148 for Assessment Year 2019–20. The reassessment was initiated on the basis of alleged non-genuine transactions with M/s Mekaster Finlease Limited amounting to ₹27,72,53,102. The petitioner pointed out that reassessment proceedings on the very same issue had already been initiated earlier and culminated in an order dated 17.03.2025 passed under Section 147 read with Section 144B, wherein additions were made after detailed verification including proceedings under Section 133(6). Despite this, a fresh notice under Section 148A was issued again on the identical issue.

Issues Involved

Whether reassessment proceedings can be initiated repeatedly on the same issue which has already been examined and adjudicated in earlier reassessment proceedings, whether failure of the Assessing Officer to consider the detailed reply filed by the assessee vitiates the order under Section 148A(3), and whether the matter deserved remand for fresh consideration.

Petitioner’s Arguments

The petitioner contended that the impugned reassessment proceedings were initiated on an issue which had already been examined by the Department in earlier reassessment proceedings and culminated in an order dated 17.03.2025. It was argued that all requisite documents had already been furnished, transactions had been verified under Section 133(6), and additions had already been made. The petitioner further submitted that despite raising a specific objection in its reply to the notice under Section 148A(1), the Assessing Officer failed to deal with the same, rendering the impugned order under Section 148A(3) unsustainable for non-application of mind and violation of principles of natural justice.

Respondent’s Arguments

The Revenue, through its counsel, did not dispute the contention that the petitioner had raised a specific plea regarding earlier reassessment on the same issue and fairly conceded that the reply had not been adequately considered in the impugned order.

Court Order / Findings

The Delhi High Court noted that the petitioner had clearly brought to the notice of the Assessing Officer that reassessment proceedings on the identical issue had already been undertaken and completed earlier. The Court observed that the impugned order under Section 148A(3) did not deal with this crucial objection at all. In view of the admitted position that the petitioner’s reply had not been properly considered, the Court held that the impugned order and the consequent notice under Section 148 could not be sustained. Accepting the consensual stand of both parties, the Court set aside the impugned order and notice and remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.

Important Clarification

The Court clarified that upon remand, the Assessing Officer shall grant the petitioner an opportunity of hearing and permit the petitioner to place all relevant documents on record in support of its stand. The Assessing Officer was directed to pass a fresh, reasoned, and speaking order strictly in accordance with law.

Final Outcome

The writ petition was disposed of. The impugned order dated 30.06.2025 passed under Section 148A(3) of the Income-tax Act and the consequent notice issued under Section 148 for Assessment Year 2019–20 were set aside. The matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer to reconsider the petitioner’s reply afresh and pass a reasoned order after granting opportunity of hearing, within a period of eight weeks.

Link to Download Order- https://www.mytaxexpert.co.in/uploads/1769505447_LOGIXHEIGHTSPRIVATELIMITEDVsDEPUTYCOMMISSIONEROFINCOMETAXCIRCLE131DELHIANR..pdf

Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.