RIDDHI AGRO INDUSTRIES V. UNION OF INDIA

WPT/122/2023

AI Insights

The case involves Riddhi Agro Industries, represented by partner Nabin Kumar Jain, challenging the notices issued under Section 148 and Section 148 A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner argued that the notices were issued without supplying the necessary information and material that the Revenue relied upon, which is mandatory as per the Supreme Court's decision in Ashish Agarwal. Additionally, the petitioner contended that the notices were not issued by the competent authority as required under Section 151-A of the Act. The respondents acknowledged the issue of non-supply of information and suggested remitting the matter back to the Assessing Officer for reconsideration.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 684750 (HC-CHHATTISGARH)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 08-05-2023
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Union of India & Others Vs. Ashish Agarwal
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: AMIT CHOUDHARY; AJAY KUMRANI
• Assessee Lawyers: S RAJESHWAR RAO; MK SINHA
• Keywords: Competent authority; Income Tax; Notice; Section 148; Section 148 A (b); Section 151-A; Supply of Information
• Section: 148; 148(A)(b); 151(a)

Judgement Text

"1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPT No. 122 of 2023 Riddhi Agro Industries (Through Partner Nabin Kumar Jain S/o Late Shri Bhiku Ram Jain Aged About 56 Years) R/o. Shop No. 5, Annapurna Complex, Near Telghani Over Bridge, Samta Colony, Raipur Tahsil District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ---- Petitioner Versus 1. Union of India, Through : Secretary, Central Board of Director Taxes, North Block, New Delhi. 2. Chief Commissioner of Income-Tax, Aaykar Bhawan, Civil Lines, Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3. Pr. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Aaykar Bhawan, Civil Lines, Raipur Chhattisgarh. 4. Income -Tax Officer, Ward -1(2), Aaykar Bhawan, Central Revenue Building, Civil Lines, Raipur 5. National Faceless Assessment Unit, Through Pr. Commissioner Of Income -Tax, NAFAC, New Delhi. ---- Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. S. Rajeshwar Rao, Advocate with Mr. M.K. Sinha, Advocate For Respondents No.2 to 5 : Mr. Amit Choudhary, Advocate with Mr. Ajay Kumrani, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order On Board 08/05/2023 1. Petitioner has filed this petition aggrieved with the issuance of 2 notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1961’). 2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner was served with notice dated 30.06.2021, however, after issuance of notice, pursuant to the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Union of India & Others Vs. Ashish Agarwal, reported in (2023) 1 SCC 617, petitioner was served with notice under Section 148 A (b) of the Act of 1961. He contended that however along with notice petitioner was not served with information and material which respondent authorities relied upon to come to the conclusion for issuance of show cause notice. It is contended that according to the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Ashish Agarwal (Supra), supply of information and material relied upon by the Revenue is mandatory. He also contended that initial notice under Section 148 of the Act of 1961 was also not in accordance with the provisions under Section 151-A of the Act of 1961 as it was not issued by the competent authority and therefore, the issuance of notice itself is bad in law. Further subsequent notice is also issued by same authority which ought to have been issued by the competent authority as prescribed under Section 151-A of the Act 1961 read with CBDT notification dated 29.03.2022. 3. Learned counsel for respondents submits that as petitioner has also taken ground of non-supply of information and material relied upon by Assessing Officer to come to the conclusion that petitioner escaped tax which according to his instruction is 3 correct and therefore, the matter can be remitted back to the Assessing Officer for reconsideration in accordance with the provisions of Act of 1961. 4. I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the documents placed on record. 5. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Ashish Agarwal (Supra), observed thus:- “28. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the present Appeals are allowed in part. The impugned common judgments and orders passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in W.T. No. 524/2021 and other allied tax appeals/petitions, is/are hereby modified and substituted as under: “28.1 The impugned section 148 notices issued to the respective assessees which were issued under unamended Section 148 of the IT Act, which were the subject matter of writ petitions before the various respective High Courts shall be deemed to have been issued under Section 148A of the IT Act as substituted by the Finance Act, 2021 and construed or treated to be show-cause notices in terms of Section 148-A(b). The assessing officer shall, within thirty days from today provide to the respective assessees information and material relied upon by the Revenue, so that the assesees can reply to the show- cause notices within two weeks thereafter; 28.2 The requirement of conducting any enquiry, if required, with the prior approval of specified authority under Section 148-A(a) is hereby dispensed with as a one time measure vis-à-vis those notices which have been issued under Section 148 of the unamended Act 4 from 01.04.2021 till date, including those which have been quashed by the High Courts. 28.3 Even otherwise as observed hereinabove holding any enquiry with the prior approval of specified authority is not mandatory but it is for the Assessing Officers concerned to hold any enquiry, if required; 28.4 The assessing officers shall thereafter pass orders in terms of section 148-A(d) in respect of each of the concerned assessees; Thereafter after following the procedure as required under Section 148-A may issue notice under Section 148 (as substituted); 28.5 All defences which may be available to the assesses including those available under Section 149 of the IT Act and all rights and contentions which may be available to the concerned assessees and Revenue under the Finance Act, 2021 and in law shall continue to be available.” 6. In para 28.1, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has categorically stated that the assessee are to be supplied with information and the material relied upon by Revenue while issuing notice under Section 148-A (b) of the Act of 1961. 7. Considering the grounds raised in writ petition that the information and the material is not supplied along with notice in light of decision in case of Ashish Agrawal (Supra), this writ petition is allowed. The order under Section 148 A(d) as also the notice under Section 148 of the Act of 1961 are hereby quashed. The matter is remitted back to the Assessing Officer for passing order afresh after providing information and material relied upon 5 by Revenue to the assessee. 8. In view of above, the petition is disposed off. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Balram "