Facts of the Case

The petitioner, Manish Gupta, filed a writ petition challenging the order dated 20.07.2022 passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and the consequential notice dated 20.07.2022 issued under Section 148 for Assessment Year 2014–15. The petitioner contended that in view of the settled position of law on limitation following the decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India vs. Rajeev Bansal and subsequent High Court judgments, the impugned reassessment proceedings were liable to be set aside.

Issues Involved

Whether the reassessment proceedings initiated for Assessment Year 2014–15 were barred by limitation under Section 149 in light of settled judicial precedents, and whether the matter required reconsideration by the Assessing Officer applying the correct legal position.

Petitioner’s Arguments

The petitioner submitted that the legal position regarding limitation for reopening assessments for AY 2014–15 stood settled by the Supreme Court in Rajeev Bansal, followed by the Delhi High Court in Ram Balram Buildhome Pvt. Ltd. and by other High Courts. It was argued that applying the settled law to the facts of the case, the impugned notice and order dated 20.07.2022 were unsustainable and deserved to be quashed.

Respondent’s Arguments

The Revenue submitted that instead of quashing the reassessment proceedings outright, the appropriate course would be to remand the matter to the Assessing Officer to enable him to independently examine the factual matrix and apply the settled position of law on limitation before passing a fresh order.

Court Order / Findings

The Delhi High Court noted that the controversy raised by the petitioner required consideration in light of the settled position of law laid down by the Supreme Court in Rajeev Bansal and followed by the Delhi High Court in Ram Balram Buildhome Pvt. Ltd. The Court also took note of the order passed by the Supreme Court in Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Reliance Industries Limited, where a similar course of remand had been adopted.

Accepting the submission of the Revenue, the Court held that the appropriate course would be to remand the matter to the Assessing Officer. The Court directed the petitioner to submit before the Assessing Officer the chart that had been filed along with the rejoinder, and directed the Assessing Officer to grant a hearing and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

Important Clarification

The Court clarified that while reconsidering the matter, the Assessing Officer shall independently apply his mind to the facts and the settled legal position relating to limitation, and shall not be influenced by the earlier impugned order passed under Section 148A(d).

Final Outcome

The writ petition was disposed of. The matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer, who was directed to grant a hearing to the petitioner and pass appropriate orders within four weeks as an outer limit after the petitioner submits the requisite chart. All pending applications, if any, were disposed of accordingly.

 

Link to Download Order- https://www.mytaxexpert.co.in/uploads/1769594804_MANISHGUPTAVsASSISTANTCOMMISSIONEROFINCOMETAXCIRCLE341DELHI.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.