🚨 Important Update for Our Users
We are transitioning to our new and improved portal - www.taxtmi.com - for a better experience.
⚠️ This portal will be discontinued on 31-07-2025
If you encounter any issues or problems while using the new portal,
please
let us know via our feedback form
so we can address them promptly.
Home
2025 (7) TMI 1315 - SCH - Income TaxReopening of assessment v/s assessment u/s 153C - Applicability of Sections 153C and 148 of the Act in case of seizure of material in search or requisition of books-documents relating to assessee other than on whom the search was conducted or requisitioned made - Delay in filling SLP HC decided 2024 (4) TMI 196 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT If the Department has chosen not to proceed u/s 153C no right is created to the petitioner for getting the notice u/s 148 quashed. Moreover learned Single Judge was not having the benefit of the decision of Abhisar Buildwell P. Ltd. 2023 (4) TMI 1056 - SUPREME COURT . The appeal against the order was dismissed having rendered infructuous in view of the subsequent developments that the assessment order was passed. The decision of the Madras High Court in the case of Saloni Prakash Kumar 2023 (10) TMI 207 - MADRAS HIGH COURT is of no help to the respondents. The High Court held that Section 153C does not preclude issuance of notice u/s 148. The field of applicability of two sections was not the issue before the Court. The notices issued u/s 148 and the impugned orders are quashed. HELD THAT - There is a gross delay of 322 and 358 days respectively in filing the Special Leave Petitions which has not been satisfactorily explained by the petitioner. Even otherwise we find no good reason to interfere with the common impugned order passed by the High Court. Special Leave Petitions are accordingly dismissed on the ground of delay as well as merits. However the question of law is kept open. The Supreme Court, through Justices J. B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, dismissed the Special Leave Petitions due to a "gross delay of 322 and 358 days" in filing, which was "not satisfactorily explained" by the petitioner. Additionally, the Court found "no good reason to interfere with the common impugned order passed by the High Court." The petitions were dismissed "on the ground of delay as well as merits," but the "question of law is kept open." Pending applications were also disposed of.
|