Prem Chopra Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 46(1) New Delhi[Delhi High Court]
Date-25th May 2023
Sub: Whether on same set of facts, diametrically opposite view can be taken by issuing notice u/s 148 in one year whereas dropping the proceedings in another year?

Cogent and consistent answering to every “why” is the DNA of demosprudence. The absence of consistency and the consequent unpredictability of the decisions, both judicial as well as administrative leads to cynicism in the society. This is the way the Ld Judges wrote the judgement where for AY 2015-16 and AY 2016-17 the notices were issued U/s 148A(b) alleging bogus purchase /sale bills in exchange for cash having been received by the petitioner from one entry operator for Rs 13.71 crores in AY 2015-16. Identical allegations were made in AY 2016-17 as well. However, upon receipt of response from the petitioner, the reassessment proceedings for AY 2016-17 was dropped as it was found that the petitioner had no transaction with the firm which was alleged to have issued bogus invoices. However, for AY 2015-16 the order u/s 148A(d) was passed. The department argued that the approval for the two assessment years was given by separate specified authorities u/s 151 and one authority was not bound by the decision of the other authority and hence divergent views. However, the court found that the assessing officer who had sent the proposal for both the years was identical and the approval was based on satisfaction recorded by the assessing officer and it was not discernible whether the AO brought the fact of proceedings for one year having been dropped to the notice of the specified authority and thus following catena of judicial decisions including that of BSNL, Radhasoami Satsang, the order u/s 148A(d) was quashed.

It is not uncommon to find such things throughout the country and this judgement will be helpful in similar cases.

Ramesh Patodia
14-06-2023