Siddaiah Gurappaji Vs ACIT (Karnataka High Court)
The Karnataka High Court has quashed an order and subsequent notices issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (ACIT) against Siddaiah Gurappaji for Assessment Year (AY) 2015-16. The Court’s decision was based on the notices being barred by limitation, relying on recent pronouncements by the Supreme Court of India.
The petitioner challenged the ACIT’s order dated March 31, 2022, passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the subsequent notice dated April 1, 2022, issued under Section 148, along with a notice dated August 8, 2023, under Section 142(1).
The petitioner’s counsel argued that for AY 2015-16, a notice under Section 148 of the I.T. Act should have been issued on or before March 31, 2021. The impugned notice, issued on April 1, 2022, was therefore beyond the prescribed limitation period. This argument was supported by the Supreme Court’s ruling in Union of India & others vs. Rajeev Bansal (2024) 469 ITR 46 (SC). The counsel further highlighted that the Supreme Court, in Rajeev Bansal, noted the Revenue’s concession that for AY 2015-16, all notices issued on or after April 1, 2021, would have to be dropped as they would fall outside the period prescribed under the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020 (TOLA).
