Abhinav Jindal HUF Vs ITO (Delhi High Court)
In the landmark case of Abhinav Jindal HUF vs. ITO, the Delhi High Court has quashed notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, focusing on the validity of the sanction required for such reassessments. The court em-phasized that the approval must be obtained from the designated competent authority, as stipu-lated under Section 151 of the Act. The case involved notices issued for the Assessment Year 2015-16, which were invalid due to the sanction being granted by the Joint Commissioner of In-come Tax (JCIT), rather than the Principal Chief Commissioner or other specified authorities. The court made it clear that this procedural requirement is crucial, especially since the notices were issued more than four years after the relevant assessment year ended.
The court also considered the arguments presented regarding the Taxation and Other Laws (Re-laxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act (TOLA), which sought to extend the timelines for reassessment actions due to disruptions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. However, the High Court determined that while TOLA allowed for extensions, it did not alter the framework re-quiring appropriate sanction as per Section 151. The judgment underscores the significance of adhering to established statutory requirements in tax assessments and reinforces the principle that actions taken without the requisite approval from the competent authority are subject to be-ing declared invalid. As a result, the notices issued under Section 148 were quashed, highlighting the court’s commitment to ensuring compliance with legal procedures in tax administration.
