Case Law Details
ITO & Ors. Vs Bharat Jayantilal Soni (Supreme Court of India)
The Supreme Court dismissed the Revenue’s Special Leave Petitions after holding that the issues were squarely covered by its earlier judgment dated 3 October 2024 in Union of India vs. Rajeev Bansal. The Court clarified that the assessees would be governed by the reasons and conclusions laid down in that decision. It directed assessing officers to dispose of objections strictly in accordance with the law declared by the Court, while preserving the assessees’ right to pursue available remedies, except on issues already concluded. Separately, relying on the Bombay High Court ruling in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. ACIT, the impugned orders passed under Section 148A(d) and the consequent notices under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act were quashed. All consequential notices or orders were also set aside, with other rights and contentions kept open.
Read HC Judgment in the case: Bombay HC Quashed Reassessment for Being Covered by Prior HC Ruling
FULL TEXT OF THE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT/ORDER
1. Delay condoned.
2. These Special Leave Petitions are squarely covered by the Judgment of this Court rendered on 3-10-2024 in “Union of India & Ors. vs. Rajeev Bansal” (Civil Appeal No.8629/2024 etc.) 2024 (11) Scale 473.
3. In view of the above, the petitions filed by the Revenue are disposed of. The assessee will be governed by reasons discussed in the said Judgment.
4. The assessing officers will dispose of the objections in terms of the law laid down by this Court. Thereafter, the assessee who are aggrieved will be at liberty to pursue all the rights and remedies in accordance with law, save and except for the issues which have been concluded in the Judgment.1
5. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of.
Author Bio
