Page 38 - Knowledge Network Transform
P. 38
would not be maintainable in view of
the alternative remedy.
20. In the case of Red Chilli
International Sales Vs. Income-tax
Officer [2023] 146 taxmann. com 224
(SC) The Assessee-firm received a
notice under section 148A (b).
Assessee responded thereto and raised
objections which were decided vide
order passed under section 148A(d).
Along with order, assessee was also
served with notice under section 148.
Assessee challenged the order passed
under section148A(d) along with
notice issued under section 148 on
18. The CBDT notification No 18/2022 dated 29th
ground that response filed by assessee to notice
March, 2022, has notified faceless reassessment
scheme. As per the scheme post 29th March, 2022 under section 148A(b) had not been considered.
The High Court by impugned order held that where
the jurisdiction to issue any notice for reassessment
proceedings had not even been concluded by
would lie to NFAC and not with the JAO. Hence in
absence of the same the entire proceeding could be statutory authority, writ Court should not interfere
at such a pre-mature stage and, therefore,
challenged as being without jurisdiction. The Hon
interference by High Court in exercise of jurisdiction
Bombay High Court have admitted few matters on
the above issue. under Article 226/227 of Constitution at this
intermediate stage was not warranted.
Alternative Remedy not an absolute Bar to Entertain
The Hon Supreme Court noted that provisions of
Writ Petition as Jurisdictional Issue goes to root of
reopening under Act had undergone an amendment
the Matter:
by Finance Act, 2021 and consequently matter of
19. In the case of VISHAL PORWAL vs CENTRAL jurisdictional pre-conditions for issue of notice
BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES AND OTHERS[WP no 6599 under section 148 would require a deeper and in
of 2023 dt 17/4/2023 ]; The Hon Madhya Pradesh depth consideration, therefore, observation made
High Court Bench ordered an interim stay of the by High Court in impugned order that writ petition
order passed under section 148A(d) of the Income would not be maintainable in view of alternative
Tax Act, 1961, as well as a consequential notice remedy was to be set aside:
under section 148 of the same Act, until further
orders. 21. Order Passed u/s. 148A(d) without considering
Reply of Assessee:-
The Bench highlighted the decision of the Supreme
A. MAJESTIC HANDICRAFT PRIVATE LIMITED vs
court in the case Red Chilli International Sales Vs.
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME (Delhi HC )
Income Tax Officer & Anr in which the apex court
stated that the provisions of reopening under the Act The Hon. Delhi High Court set aside the order passed
under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act 1961 as
of 1961 has undergone an amendment by the
this was passed without considering the reply of the
Finance Act, 2021 and consequently, the matter
would require deeper and in depth consideration assessee. The assessing officer was directed for de
novo consideration.
keeping in view the earlier case law. Further, the
Supreme court had also set aside the observations of B. India Cements Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of
the High Court observing that the writ petitions Income-tax [2023] 148 taxmann.com 206 (Madras)
Assessing Officer on finding that assessee had
35 Good friends, good books, and a sleepy conscience: this is the ideal life.
