2023 (8) TMI 1639 - HC - Income Tax

Validity of reassessment proceedings - as argued AO has sought to reopen the assessment in question on the very same ground and on the very same issue which is the subject matter of the pending appeal in respect of the same assessment year - HELD THAT - As perused the grounds of appeal in the pending appeal in question filed on 17th January 2019 which relates to two issues ; firstly addition as unexplained cash credit and secondly addition as deemed expenditure. When petitioner was asked to demonstrate from the annexure to the impugned notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act that the aforesaid issues pending before the appellate authority are also the grounds for issuance of notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act to which he could not satisfy this Court from the reasons annexed to the impugned notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act. The aforesaid ground of challenge is not sustainable in law for interfering with the impugned order under Section 148A(d) of the Act. AO has not considered its reply to the notice u/s 148A(b) of the Act before passing the impugned order u/s 148A(d) of the Act - We donot find that the same is not correct and it is not a case that after the issuance of notice u/s 148A(b) of the Act any procedural irregularity has been committed by the assessing officer or there is violation of principles of natural justice or that the impugned order has been passed in contrary to any provision of law and as such not inclined to interfere with the impugned order u/s 148A(d) of the Act. Accordingly this writ petition is dismissed.

Summary

The Calcutta High Court, through Justice Md. Nizamuddin, dismissed the writ petition challenging the order passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for assessment year 2016-17. The petitioner contended that the assessment was reopened on the same grounds as those pending in appeal, specifically regarding unexplained cash credit of Rs. 25 lakhs and deemed expenditure of Rs. 1,17,010/-. However, the Court found that the impugned notice under Section 148A(b) did not rely on these pending appeal issues as grounds for reopening, rendering this challenge unsustainable.Further, the petitioner argued that the assessing officer failed to consider its reply to the Section 148A(b) notice before passing the Section 148A(d) order. The Court rejected this claim, holding there was no procedural irregularity, violation of principles of natural justice, or contravention of law in the impugned order.The Court held: no interference with the order under Section 148A(d) was warranted, but the petitioner remains "at liberty to raise all the points raised in this writ petition before the assessing officer" in subsequent proceedings, who "shall consider the same in accordance with law."