Pratishtha Garg Vs ACIT (Delhi High Court)
The Delhi High Court, in the case of Pratishtha Garg Vs ACIT, addressed the validity of a second reassessment proceeding initiated against the assessee for the Assessment Year (AY) 2016-17. The core issue involved the continuity of parallel reassessment notices despite the initial one being dropped.
The sequence of events began with the AO issuing a first notice under Section 148 on June 23, 2021, seeking to reopen the assessment. This notice, along with others issued nationwide using the pre-March 31, 2021, regime, was challenged. Following the Supreme Court’s ruling in Ashish Agarwal, this first notice was deemed to be a notice under the new regime, specifically Section 148A(b). Subsequently, on May 22, 2022, the AO provided fresh information to the assessee, construed as a fresh notice under Section 148A(b), to which the assessee responded on June 7, 2022.
However, the situation became complicated when the AO simultaneously initiated three different proceedings for AY 2016-17. On June 29, 2022, the AO issued a notice under Section 153C based on search material related to the Alankit Group. Then, on July 14, 2022, the AO proceeded to pass an order under Section 148A(d) and issued a second notice under Section 148. Following this, the assessee was informed that the first Section 148 proceeding was rendered redundant and closed due to the existence of two e-proceedings. Later, the proceedings initiated under the second Section 148 notice were also deemed to have abated because Section 153C proceedings had commenced.
