The Delhi High Court quashed the re-assessment order mailed without mentioning issuing officer’s name and designation.
Jindal Exports and Imports Private Limited and Kiran Credits Private Limited, the petitioners challenged the legality of notice under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and orders under Section 148A(d) of the Act on multiple grounds.
The notices dated 02.06.2022 under Section 148A(b) of the Act, which were mailed to the petitioners on 08.06.2022 had lost efficacy after 03.06.2022, therefore, the notices as well as the consequent orders under Section 148A(d) of the Act are liable to be set aside.
In the clarificatory Instruction No. 1/2022 dated 11.05.2022, issued by Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) consequent to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs Ashish Aggarwal, 2022(5), “it was directed that information and material is required to be provided in all cases within 30 days.”
However, it has also been noticed that notices cannot be issued in a case for AY 2013-14, AY 2014-15
The impugned notices under Section 148A(b) of the Act, having been mailed after 03.06.2022, do not just abrogate the mandate of the CBDT instructions but also violate the provisions of Section 282A of the Income Tax Act insofar as the name and designation of the concerned officer issuing the same find no mention in the same.
A division bench comprising Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Girish Kathpalia set aside the notices under Section 148A(b) of the Act and orders under Section 148A(d) of the Act. Further allowed the appeal by granting liberty to the respondent/revenue to take further steps following the law.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
