Satluj Credit & Holdings Private Limited Vs ITO (Madras High Court)
Order u/s 148A(d) treated as notice u/s 148A(b) because reasons in the order differed from those in original notice
The Hon’ble High Court of Madras held in the above-mentioned case that if the reasons set out in a notice u/s 148A(b) to which the noticee is required to respond are different from the reasons contained in the order u/s 148A(d), the issuance of the notice would fail to serve its purpose and would be reduced to an empty formality.
In this case, the notice u/s 148A(b) proposed to tax the receipt from the transfer of shares as capital gain, but the order u/s 148A(d) stated that the impugned transaction would attract section 56(2)(x)(a). Thus, the notice issued u/s 148A(b) would not serve the object of the issuance of the notice.
Therefore, the impugned order passed u/s 148A(d) would be treated as a notice u/s 148A(b), and the appellants were directed to put forth their objections.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
The present writ appeals are filed challenging the orders of the learned Judge in the writ proceedings, wherein notice(s) under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) and the order(s) made pursuant thereto under Section 148A(d) of the Act dated 06.04.2023 and the consequential notice(s) under Section 148 of the Act dated 06.04.2023 were put to challenge. The challenge to the above proceedings was on the premise that the Writ Petitions challenging the order(s) under Section 148A(d) of the Act are premature and that the legal issues arising for consideration in the assessment shall be decided by the assessing authority after detailed consideration of the appellants’ argument while rejecting the contention of the appellants that the reasons contained in the order(s) issued under Section 148 A(d) of the Act are different from the reasons which were stated in the notice(s) issued under Section 148 A(b) of the Act.
