Facts of the Case

The present writ petition pertains to Assessment Year (AY) 2011–12. The petitioner, Shourya Estates Pvt. Ltd. (SEPL), challenged the legality of a notice dated 31.03.2018 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for reopening its assessment.

Additionally, the petitioner sought to quash the order dated 26.11.2018 whereby its objections against the reopening of assessment were rejected by the Assessing Officer.

It was noted by both parties that the issue involved in the present writ petition was identical to a previously decided case concerning the petitioner’s sister concern, Shourya Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for reopening the assessment was legally sustainable.
  2. Whether the order rejecting the petitioner’s objections against reopening of assessment was valid in law.

Petitioner’s Arguments

  • The petitioner challenged the reopening of assessment as being legally unsustainable.
  • It was contended that the objections raised against such reopening were improperly rejected by the Assessing Officer.
  • The petitioner relied upon the judgment passed in the case of its sister concern involving identical issues.

Respondent’s Arguments

  • The respondents defended the issuance of notice under Section 148 and the rejection of objections.
  • It was, however, acknowledged that the issue involved was similar to that decided in the case of the petitioner’s sister concern.

Court’s Findings / Order

  • The Court observed that the issue involved in the present case was identical to that already adjudicated in W.P.(C) No. 12709/2018 concerning the petitioner’s sister concern.
  • In that case, the Court had quashed the order rejecting objections to reopening of assessment.
  • Following the same reasoning, the Court held that the present writ petition must also follow the same course.
  • The notice issued under Section 148 was quashed.
  • The order rejecting objections dated 26.11.2018 was also quashed.
  • The writ petition was allowed in favour of the petitioner.

Important Clarification

  • The judgment reinforces the principle that where identical issues have already been adjudicated in a related matter, consistency must be maintained.
  • The Court emphasized judicial consistency and applied the reasoning from a connected case without re-litigating identical issues.

Link to download the order -https://delhihighcourt.nic.in/app/showFileJudgment/RAS04122023CW130492018_193215.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.