Mohammed Yaseen Vs ITO (Karnataka High Court)
The Karnataka High Court allowed the writ petition filed by Mohammed Yaseen challenging reassessment proceedings initiated for Assessment Year 2015-16 under the Income-tax Act, 1961. The petitioner sought quashing of the order passed under Section 148A(d), the notice issued under Section 148, the show-cause notice under Section 148A(b), the assessment order passed under Sections 147 read with 144, the computation sheet, demand notice, and the penalty orders and consequential notices issued under Sections 271(1)(c) and 271F. The petitioner contended that the notice under Section 148 ought to have been issued on or before 31.03.2021 and that the notice dated 01.04.2022 was barred by limitation in view of the Supreme Court decisions in Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal and Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax v. Nehal Ashit Shah.
The Revenue opposed the petition and contended that it lacked merit.
The High Court observed that it was undisputed that the reassessment proceedings related to Assessment Year 2015-16 and that the impugned notice under Section 148 had been issued on 01.04.2022. Referring to the Supreme Court judgment in Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal (2024) 469 ITR 46 (SC), the Court noted that notices issued on or after 01.04.2021 for Assessment Year 2015-16 were not permissible, and that the Revenue itself had conceded before the Supreme Court that such notices would have to be dropped as they were beyond the prescribed limitation period. The Court also relied upon the subsequent decision of the Supreme Court in Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax v. Nehal Ashit Shah dated 04.04.2025, wherein the Supreme Court reiterated that notices issued after 01.04.2022 were barred by limitation.
