Facts of the Case
The batch of writ petitions before the Delhi High
Court arose out of reassessment proceedings initiated by the Income Tax
Department for Assessment Years 2016–17
and 2017–18. The petitioners included various assessees such as
companies, individuals, and Hindu Undivided Families (HUFs).
In a representative matter, the assessee filed its return of income for AY 2017–18, which
was processed under Section 143(1) of
the Income Tax Act, 1961. Subsequently, following the decision of the
Supreme Court in Union of India v. Ashish Agarwal, the Revenue issued a notice under Section 148A(b) alleging
that certain income had escaped assessment.
The assessee submitted a reply to the notice.
Thereafter, the Assessing Officer passed an order under Section 148A(d) concluding that income had escaped
assessment and issued a reassessment
notice under Section 148.
The assessees challenged the reassessment
proceedings before the Delhi High Court contending that the notices and orders
were issued without approval of the
competent specified authority as mandated under Section 151 of the Income Tax
Act.
Issues Involved
- Whether reassessment notices issued under Sections 148A(d) and 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 are
valid without prior approval of the specified authority under Section 151.
- Whether approval granted by an authority other than the specified authority prescribed under
Section 151(ii) renders the reassessment proceedings invalid.
- Whether reliance placed by the Revenue on Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain
Provisions) Act, 2020 (TOLA) and CBDT Instruction No.1/2022 dated 11.05.2022 could cure the
defect of absence of proper approval.
Petitioner’s Arguments
- The impugned notices were issued without obtaining approval from the “specified authority” as required
under Section 151(ii).
- The approval relied upon by the Revenue was from an authority not competent under the statutory scheme.
- The statutory requirement of approval is a jurisdictional condition precedent, and failure to comply
with it vitiates the entire reassessment proceedings.
- The reliance placed by the Revenue on TOLA and CBDT instructions could not override the statutory
provisions of the Income Tax Act.
Respondent’s Arguments
- The notices were issued following the Supreme Court judgment in Union of India v. Ashish Agarwal.
- Approval had been obtained from the competent authority within the
department.
- The actions of the department were also supported by TOLA and CBDT Instruction No.1/2022,
which governed the implementation of reassessment provisions after the
amendments introduced by the Finance
Act, 2021.
Court Findings
The Delhi High Court examined the provisions of Sections 148, 149, and 151 of the Income Tax
Act, 1961, both prior to and after the amendments introduced by the Finance Act, 2021.
- Under the amended framework, issuance of a notice under Section 148 requires prior approval of the “specified
authority”.
- This approval is not a
procedural formality but a mandatory statutory requirement.
- The reassessment proceedings in the present batch of cases had been
triggered without approval from
the authority prescribed under Section 151(ii).
The Court also noted that statutory provisions of
the Act cannot be overridden by
administrative instructions or relaxation laws such as TOLA.
Court Order
The Delhi High Court held that the absence of approval from the specified
authority renders the reassessment proceedings invalid in law.
- Set aside the orders passed under Section
148A(d).
- Quashed the consequential notices issued
under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act.
The writ petitions were therefore allowed in favour of the assessees.
Important Clarification
The Court clarified that approval from the correct “specified authority” under Section 151 is
mandatory before issuing reassessment notices.
If such approval is not obtained from the competent
authority prescribed under the statute, the entire reassessment process becomes legally unsustainable.
Link to download the order - https://delhihighcourt.nic.in/app/showFileJudgment/RAS05012024CW165242022_114311.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.
0 Comments
Leave a Comment