NARPAT SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It is stated by learned counsel representing the parties that the controversy involved in these writ petitions is squarely covered by the ratio of judgment rendered by a Coordinate Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sudesh Taneja v. Income Tax Officer and Ors. (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.969/2022) decided on 27/1/2022, wherein while quashing the impugned notices of re-assessment, this Court observed as under:-

(2.) Elaborate provisions are made under Sec. 148A of the Act enabling the Assessing Officer to make enquiry with respect to material suggesting that income has escaped assessment, issuance of notice to the assessee calling upon why notice under Sec. 148 should not be issued and passing an order considering the material available on record including response of the assessee if made while deciding whether the case is fit for issuing notice under Sec. 148. There is absolutely no indication in all these provisions which would suggest that the legislature intended that the new scheme of reopening of assessments would be applicable only to the period post 1/4/2021. In absence of any such indication all notices which were issued after 1/4/2021 had to be in accordance with such provisions. To reiterate, we find no indication whatsoever in the scheme of statutory provisions suggesting that the past provisions would continue to apply even after the substitution for the assessment periods prior to substitution. In fact there are strong indications to the contrary. We may recall, that time limits for issuing notice under Sec. 148 of the Act have been modified under substituted Sec.

(3.) In view of the Sudesh Taneja's judgment (supra), the impugned notice/s and all consequential proceedings, if any, are invalid and bad in law and hence, the same are quashed and set aside. The writ petitions are allowed. Stay applications are disposed of.