| Question And Answer | |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Notice U/SEc. 148 issued after 31.03.2021 for A.Y. 2016-17 |
| Category: | Income-Tax |
| Querist: | Manoj Jain |
| Answered by: | Advocate Shashi Ashok Bekal |
| Tags: | Reassessment, writ petition |
| Date: | April 8, 2022 |
Assessee has received the Notice U/SEc, 147/148 after 31.03.2021 for A.Y. 2016-17 and assessee has also filed the ROI in response to same. In this respect assessee challenged the validity of the said notice on the ground that Explanation A(a)(ii) and Explanation A(b) to the Notifications dated 31st March, 2021 and 27th April, 2021 respectively issued under The Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020 are ultra vires to the said Relaxation Act, 2020. How ever AO has not responded to the same. After the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Tata Communications and Transformation Services Ltd. Vs. ACIT in the Writ Petition No.1334 of 2021 in the Order dated 29.03.2022 has held that notice U/Sec.148 of the Act issued after 31.03.2021 are bad in law and are not valid. The assessee submitted to the AO that since the notice U/Sec.148 of the Act was issued by the Assessing Officer after the specified dated i.e 31.03.2021 and in view of above BHC which is binding under the “principle of judicial precedence”, it is submitted that the notice u/s 148(1) of the Act issued in the present case of the assessee may kindly be quashed in toto and the preset reassessment proceedings be withdrawn as non-est and the return be consigned to records as filed. However there is no response from the AO.
In this background, whether assesse also have to file an writ petition before the BHC or wait till the action of the AO . Pl guide
- Accordingly, we request you to kindly drop the re-assessment proceedings initiated on issuance of Notice U/Sec.148 of the Act after 31.03.2021.
As the Department has preferred an SLP in all reassessment cases before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The Ld. Assesing Officer will rightly proceed with assessment so as keep the issue alive. The Assessee might get relief from the first appellate authority. Further, there may not be any recovery proceedings in light of several judicial precedents governing the parameters for a stay of demand.
I understand the honourable High Courts of Bombay, Allahabad, Delhi etc. have held action of issuing notices u/s 148 after 31.03.2021 are not correct and accordingly quashed the notices only in those cases who have preferred writ before the Honourable High Court. Therefore, one may have to file a writ. Honourable Chhattisgarh High Court has held the notice to be valid, and now the division bench has heard appeal against the single judge order and directed the ITD not to take any coercive action till final decision, but allowed to continue assessment proceedings. The SLP filed before the Honourable Supreme Court is likely to be heard on 19th April 2022 till then one may wait. If SLP is rejected by the court, then the matter reaches finality. If the SLP is accepted by the court, then one shall have to wait for the decision of the court into the mater. Let us hope for the best.
The courts are directing to follow the 148A without any monetary limit and hence no body is actually awaiting the SC as it is more likely to follow the HC who have mostly held as such.
The assessee should be more happy if SC says in favour of deptt that 148 is valid.
AT least assessee can have protection of hundreds of 148 orders/judgements of last 50 years.
THE EUPHORIA HAS LONG GONE AND ASSESSEE ARE SLOWLY REALISING THAT 148A IS MORE DAMAGING AFTER SEEING THE 148A/143(3)/144B ORDERS which came in march 2022 in large numbers.
WRITS ORDER ARE NOT PANACEA.NO BODY IS EVEN READING THE ORDERS AS THEY KNOW IT IS MORE DAMAGING AND NOT A RELIEF.