9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (7) TMI 688X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2. Issue notice. 2.1 Mr Ruchir Bhatia, learned senior standing counsel, who appears on behalf of the respondents/revenue, accepts notice. 3. In view of the directions that we propose to issue Mr. Bhatia says that he does not wish to file a counter-affidavit in the matter, and he will argue the matter based on the record presently available to the court. 4. Therefore, with the consent of the counsel for parties, the writ petition is taken up for hearing and final disposal, at this stage itself. 5. This writ petition is directed against order dated 30.07.2022 passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short, "Act"]. Besides this, challenge is also laid to the consequential notice dated 31.07.2022 issued under Section 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed reassessment proceedings for AY 2019-20. 8. As a matter of fact, Mr Jain says that the regular assessment carried out in AY 2018-19, and scrutiny assessment carried out in AY 2020-21, also dealt with the issues which are subject matter of the AY with which the instant writ petition is concerned, i.e., 2019-20. 9. In sum, it is Mr Jain's contention that these aspects, which were put to the Assessing Officer by the petitioner in his communication dated 13.06.2022, have not been considered by the AO while passing the order dated 30.07.2022, under Section 148A(d) of the Act. 10. Mr Bhatia says, insofar as the first contention advanced by Mr Jain is concerned, that the same is unsustainable in law. It is Mr Bhatia's contention that since l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessing officer. 16. Since according to Mr Jain, assessment order has not been passed, it would be best, if the AO were to advert to the record of the earlier assessment years before passing the assessment order. It is ordered accordingly. 17. We are conscious of the fact that the rule of res-judicata does not apply, i.e., that each AY is different. That being said, if the reasons for reopening are consistently similar or same, the AO needs to apply the principle of consistency, before passing the assessment order. [See Radhasaomi Satsang v CIT (1992) 193 ITR 321 (SC)] 18. Mr Bhatia, on instructions, states that personal hearing has already been granted to the authorised representative of the petitioner. 18.1 The AO will pass a speaki ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
