Facts of the Case

The petitioner, Consulting Engineering Services (India) Pvt. Ltd., received notices under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act from two different Income Tax Officers in relation to Assessment Years 2008–09 and 2009–10. The petitioner approached the Delhi High Court by way of writ petitions challenging the multiplicity and validity of such notices.

During the proceedings, the Revenue produced a communication issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 30(1), New Delhi, clarifying that the notices issued by that officer had been inadvertently issued and were being withdrawn. The Revenue clarified that the petitioner was required to respond only to the valid notice issued by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer, Circle 4(1), New Delhi.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether reassessment notices under Section 148 can be issued by more than one Assessing Officer for the same assessment years?
  2. Whether notices issued by a non-jurisdictional Assessing Officer are legally sustainable?
  3. Whether such defective notices are liable to be withdrawn or quashed?

Petitioner’s Arguments

  • The petitioner contended that receiving notices from two separate Assessing Officers for identical assessment years created ambiguity and procedural irregularity.
  • It was argued that reassessment proceedings must be initiated only by the competent jurisdictional Assessing Officer.
  • The issuance of duplicate notices was challenged as arbitrary and contrary to the scheme of the Income Tax Act.

Respondent’s Arguments

  • The Revenue submitted that the notices issued by ACIT, Circle 30(1), New Delhi were inadvertently issued.
  • It was clarified through official communication that such notices were being withdrawn.
  • The Revenue maintained that the valid and operative notice remained the one issued by the Assessing Officer having proper jurisdiction, namely Circle 4(1), New Delhi.

Court Order / Findings

The Delhi High Court took the Revenue’s clarification on record and accepted that the notices issued by ACIT, Circle 30(1), were issued inadvertently and stood withdrawn.

The Court clarified that the petitioner was required to respond only to the notice issued by the jurisdictionally competent Assessing Officer under Section 148.

Accordingly, the writ petitions were disposed of in view of the clarification furnished by the Revenue.

Important Clarification

The judgment clarifies that where multiple reassessment notices are issued for the same assessment year, only the notice issued by the competent jurisdictional Assessing Officer survives, and inadvertently issued notices by non-jurisdictional officers can be formally withdrawn to cure procedural defects.

Sections Involved

  • Section 148, Income Tax Act, 1961 (Notice for Income Escaping Assessment)
  • Reassessment Proceedings relating to Assessment Years 2008–09 and 2009–10

Link to download the order - https://delhihighcourt.nic.in/app/case_number_pdf/2015:DHC:10988-DB/BDA06052015CW43402015_104544.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.