Nandita Singh V. Union of India and Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Shillong and National Faceless Assessment Centre Delhi and Income Tax Officer Ward No. 1 Digboi

WP(C)/173/2023

AI Insights

Nandita Singh, the petitioner, challenged an assessment order for the assessment year 2013-14, where her income was assessed at Rs.4,32,03,305, leading to a tax liability of Rs.2,88,40,391. The challenge was primarily based on the grounds that the initiation of reassessment proceedings under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was beyond the limitation period as prescribed under Section 149 of the Act. However, this argument was rendered invalid due to the amendments introduced by the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020, which extended the limitation period. The court also referenced a Supreme Court judgment that supported the relaxation of the time limit for issuing reassessment notices under Section 148 of the Act. Consequently, the court dismissed the writ petition, suggesting that the petitioner should pursue the matter through the appellate authority under the Income Tax Act.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 691511 (HC-ASSAM NAGALAND MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 05-11-2024
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Union of India & Ors. Vs. Rajeev Bansal
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act of 1961, Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: S C KEYAL
• Assessee Lawyers: B P BORAH
• Keywords: Income tax assessment; Limitation Period; Re-assessment notice; Writ petition; Statutory Appellate Jurisdiction
• Section: 147; 148; 149

Judgement Text

"Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010202932022 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/173/2023 NANDITA SINGH R/O- VILA C, TATA RAISINIA RESIDENCY GOLF COURSE EXTENSION ROAD, ULHWAS, SECTOR 59, GURGAON, 122101, HARYANA. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND 3 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, ROOM NO. 46, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI- 110001. 2:PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX SHILLONG AAYKAR BHAWAN MG ROAD SHILLONG 783001. 3:NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE DELHI INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT ARA CENTRE E-2 GROUND FLOOR JHANDEWALA EXTENSION NEW DELHI- 110005. Page No.# 2/4 4:INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD NO. 1 DIGBOI AYKAR BHAWAN DIGBOI ASSAM 786171 For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. B.P. Borah, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. S.C. Keyal, SC, Income Tax BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH ORDER Date : 05.11.2024 Heard Mr. B.P. Borah, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. S.C. Keyal, the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the Income Tax Department. 2. The petitioner in the instant proceedings has assailed the assessment order dated 21.03.2022 passed by the respondent No. 3 for the assessment year 2013-14 whereby the income was assessed at Rs.4,32,03,305/- (Rupees Four Crore Thirty Two Lakh Three Thousand Three Hundred Five) and the petitioner was held to be liable to pay an amount of Rs.2,88,40,391/- (Rupees Two Crore Eighty Eight Lakh Forty Thousand Three Hundred Ninety One). 3. The petitioner in the instant proceedings had invoked the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution primarily challenging the initiation of proceedings under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act of 1961 (for short, ‘the Act of 1961’) on the ground that the same is beyond the limitation provided Page No.# 3/4 under Section 149 of the said Act of 1961. 4. It is however, pertinent to mention that the said jurisdictional issue which have been raised no longer exist taking into account the provisions of the TAXATION AND OTHER LAWS (RELAXATION AND AMENDMENT OF CERTAIN PROVISIONS) ACT, 2020 which enlarges the period of limitation to 31st of March, 2021. Further to that, it is also seen that in a recent judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India & Ors. Vs. Rajeev Bansal reported in 2024 SCC Online SC 2693, the Supreme Court had held that Section 3(1) of the said Act of 2020 overrides Section 149 of the Act of 1961 only to the extent of relaxing the time limit for issuance of a re-assessment notice under Section 148 of the Act of 1961. 5. In the instant case, it is seen that the notice under Section 148 was issued on 31.03.2021 and as such, the proceedings was within the period of limitation. Further to that, it is also seen that pursuant thereto, the assessment order was passed on 21.03.2022 and the petitioner, therefore, being aggrieved ought to have taken recourse to the statutory appellate jurisdiction, rather than approaching this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. 6. Taking into account, that the jurisdictional issue which was raised is no longer there, this Court does not find any good ground for entertaining the instant writ petition. 7. Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands dismissed on the ground of being not entertained. 8. It is however, relevant to observe that the dismissal of the writ petition, on being not entertained, shall not act as a bar upon the petitioner to prefer any appeal under the provisions of the Act of 1961. Further to that, this Court also Page No.# 4/4 observes that the period from 26.09.2022 till date be excluded while computing the period of limitation in preferring the appeal before the Appellate Authority. JUDGE Comparing Assistant "