TMI Blog2023 (6) TMI 739X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 01.04.2021, notices could have been issued only under the new regime. Petitioner cannot but accept that the notice dated 23.05.2022 has been issued under the new regime, i.e., under Section 148A(b) of the Act. Since proceedings on the very same aspects have been dropped in other AYs, that aspect required attention of the AO - Since according to Petitioner assessment order has not been passed, it would be best, if the AO were to advert to the record concerning the earlier AYs before passing the assessment order. It is ordered accordingly. Rule of res-judicata does not apply, i.e., that each AY is different. That said, if the reasons for reopening are consistently similar or the same, the AO needs to apply the principle of consist ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the consequential notice dated 31.07.2022 issued under Section 148 of the Act. 6.1 In addition, the petitioner has also assailed the notice dated 07.06.2021 issued under Section 148 of the Act and the intimation letter dated 23.05.2022 which is, in effect, a notice issued under Section 148A(b) of the Act. 7. Mr Rohit Jain, learned counsel who appears on behalf of the petitioner, makes two broad submissions in support of the petitioner s case. (i) First, the notice dated 23.05.2022 issued under Section 148A(b) of the Act is unsustainable in law. According to Mr Jain, in the said notice, there is a reference to the decision of the Supreme Court rendered in Union of India vs Ashish Aggarwal, (2022) 444 ITR 1 (SC). It is Mr Jain ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ned, that the same is unsustainable in law. It is Mr Bhatia s say since limitation had not expired at the relevant point in time, notice dated 23.05.2022 issued under Section 148A(b) of the Act is sustainable, notwithstanding reference, as contended by the Mr Jain, to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Ashish Aggarwal s case. 12. Insofar as the other aspect is concerned, Mr Bhatia says that since an assessment order has not been passed for AY 2019-20, the AO could consider the record of the earlier AYs, and the reasons for dropping those proceedings, to which Mr. Jain has made a reference. 13. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. We are in agreement with Mr. Bhatia that the notice dated 23.05.2022 issued under Section 148A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
