The Delhi High Court has held that the Rajeev Bansal Case cannot possibly be construed or read as affirming the authority of a Joint Commissioner to accord approval or the authority being viewed as the competent authority for the purposes of grant of approval for the Reassessment Notice under Section 151 of the Income Tax Act post 01 April 2021.
The bench of Justice Yashwant Varma and Justice Dharmesh Sharma has observed that the Supreme Court in Rajeev Bansal had merely alluded to the time frames within which approval could be sought and obtained and that being regulated by the extended timelines which Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020 (TOLA) had introduced.
The writ petitioner/assessee questioned the invocation of Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the department in relation to Assessment Year 2015-16. The challenge mounted on the basis of the digital signing of the notice under Section 148 on 09 April 2021 although it bore a date of 31 March 2021.
The petitioner contended that since the notice would be deemed to have been issued on 09 April 2021, it would be the reassessment regime as introduced by virtue of Finance Act, 2021 which would have been applicable. This according to the writ petitioner would have required the respondents to follow the procedure as prescribed by Section 148A which had come to be introduced by virtue of Finance Act, 2021. It is these aspects which came to be noticed by the Court originally when it entertained the writ petition on 15 February 2022 and led to the passing of an interim order providing that while it would be open for the Assessing Officer to frame an order of assessment, the same would not be given effect to.
The petitioner contended that the reassessment action on the ground of the proposed reassessment having been approved by the Joint Commissioner and who, according to learned senior counsel, cannot be recognised to be the authority competent in law as per Section 151 of the Income Tax Act.
The court noted that the approval was granted by the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-52, Delhi.
The court held that the notice came to be issued four or three years after the end of the relevant assessment year, the approval granted by the Joint Commissioner of Income-tax would not be compliant with the scheme of section 151. The grant of approval by the Joint Commissioner of Income-tax is not sustainable.
The court allowed the petition and quashed the reassessment notice.
Case Details
Case Title: Rohit Kumar Versus ITO
Case No.: W.P.(C) 2830/2022
Date: 15/01/2025
Counsel For Petitioner: Salil Aggarwal, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Mahir Aggarwal, Mr. Uma Shankar and Mr. Madhur Aggarwal, Advs.
Counsel For Respondent: Debesh Panda, SSC with Ms. Zehra Khan, JSC, Mr. Vikramaditya Singh, Mr. Kanishk Aggarwal, Ms. Anauntta Shankar and Mr. Ruchir Joshi, Advs.
