2025 (5) TMI 453 - SCH - Income Tax

Validity of reopening of assessment against the ex-promoters - notice u/s 148 against petitioner company after the approval of the resolution plan for a period prior to closing - liability of previous management - as decided by HC 2024 (5) TMI 57 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT unable to fathom as to how the provisions of Section 148 can be applied for collection of evidences of third party ex-promoters etc. and we say this because there are separate provisions u/s 133(6) in which such evidences can be collected. We are also unable to understand how the provisions of Section 148 can be used when the proceedings are not for recovery of tax - HELD THAT - There is a gross delay of 250 days in filing the Special Leave Petition which has not been satisfactorily explained by the petitioner. Even otherwise we find no good reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the High Court. Special Leave Petition is accordingly dismissed on the ground of delay as well as merits.

Summary

The Supreme Court, through Justices J. B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, dismissed the Special Leave Petition due to a "gross delay of 250 days" in its filing, which was "not satisfactorily explained" by the petitioner. Additionally, the Court found "no good reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the High Court." The petition was dismissed both "on the ground of delay as well as merits," and all pending applications were disposed of.