The Karnataka High Court has quashed the income tax reassessment notice issued under Section 148A of the Income Tax Act which prescribed the period of 6 days to the assessee to show cause why the reassessment proceedings should not be initiated.
The bench of Justice S.R.Krishna Kumar has relied on the decision of Bombay High Court in the case of Mukesh J. Ruparel Vs. Income Tax Officer in which it was held that if the notice under Section 148A(b) prescribes a period lesser than a period of seven days as contemplated in the said provision, the said notice would be vitiated resulting in quashing of not only the notice but also the subsequent assessment orders, penalty notices, orders, etc.
Background
The petitioner/assessee has challenged the notice issued under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act.
The assessee pointed out that the notice issued by the department to the petitioner for the Assessment Year 2019-20 calling upon the petitioner to submit his response/reply within a period of six days is contrary to the prescribed period of seven days as contemplated under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, which is illegal, invalid and inoperative and no proceedings pursuant thereto could have been taken by the respondent and the same deserve to be quashed.
The notice as well as all subsequent proceedings including assessment order issued under Section 148A(b) notices, etc., deserve to be quashed.
Read More: SUPREME COURT DISPOSED OF 573 DIRECT TAX CASES WHERE TAX EFFECT IS LESS THAN RS. 5 CRORE
Conclusion
The court held that the reassessment Notice prescribes a period of six days, which is lesser than the minimum prescribed period of seven days as contemplated under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act. The Notice and all the consequential proceedings, orders, notices, etc., deserve to be quashed by reserving liberty in favour of the department to take recourse to remedies as available in law.
Case Title: Massood Gulam Versus ITO
Case No.: Writ Petition No. 12393 Of 2024 (T-IT)
Date: 21/08/2024
Counsel For Petitioner: Balram R Rao
Counsel For Respondent: M. Thirumallesh
