Bijendra Singh Son of Shri Nandram Vs ITO (Rajasthan High Court)
Introduction: The Rajasthan High Court recently made a significant ruling in the case of Bijendra Singh vs ITO, where it quashed an income tax notice issued under Section 148A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The court’s decision was based on the grounds that the notice was barred by limitation. Let’s delve into the details of the case and the court’s findings.
Detailed Analysis: The petitioner, Bijendra Singh, challenged the order dated 31.03.2022, passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, along with the notice dated 31.03.2022 and the assessment order dated 27.03.2023 for the assessment year 2015-16. The notice alleged that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment, and the petitioner had deposited substantial amounts in a bank account.
The petitioner responded, contesting the amount deposited and argued that the notice was barred by limitation. Despite the petitioner’s clarification that the cash transactions were only Rs. 33,62,000, the assessing authority mechanically concluded that it was Rs. 59,75,000, triggering the extended period of limitation.
During the assessment proceedings, a show cause notice was issued, treating the cash deposit as unexplained money under Section 69A read with Section 115BBE of the Act. The petitioner objected, citing lack of jurisdiction during the ongoing Section 148 proceedings.
The assessing authority passed the assessment order, rejecting the petitioner’s objections and determining the income at Rs. 15,18,900. The petitioner raised objections based on the judgment in Abdul Majeed vs. ITO but was met with the authority’s refusal to drop the proceedings.
Conclusion: The Rajasthan High Court, in line with its previous judgment in Abdul Majeed’s case, held that the notice under Section 148A was barred by limitation. The court observed that the assessing authority, despite the petitioner’s clarifications, erroneously proceeded with the notice, and subsequent proceedings lacked jurisdiction. Consequently, the court quashed the notice dated 17.03.2022 and all consequential proceedings, including the assessment order.
This ruling reaffirms the importance of strict adherence to statutory timelines in initiating income tax proceedings and highlights the need for authorities to accurately assess relevant facts before issuing notices.
List of Cases Discussed / Relied Upon
