TMI Blog2023 (7) TMI 688X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ccording to assessee would not apply qua the AY in issue, it would not render the notice untenable, as it is common case of counsel for parties that after 01.04.2021, notices could have been issued only under the new regime. Assessee cannot but accept that the notice dated 23.05.2022 has been issued under the new regime, i.e., u/s 148A(b) of the Act. Since proceedings on the very same aspects have been dropped in for the past AYs, that aspect required attention of the assessing officer - 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 th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on 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 148 of the Act. 5.1 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 under Section 148A(b) of the Act. 6. 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 the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 limitation has not expired, the 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. 11. Insofar as the other aspect is concerned, Mr Jain 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 the proceedings, to which Mr. Jain has made a reference. 12. We have heard learned counsel for the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
