Case Law Details
Giant Construction Company Vs DCIT (Madras High Court)
The petitioner assails the communication dated 21.04.2022 by which the objections raised by the petitioner to the reopening of the assessment were rejected. The petitioner asserts that the impugned communication is in contravention of the amended Section 148-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Upon the insertion of Section 148-A, the petitioner contends that an inquiry should be conducted, if required, and even otherwise all the materials and reasons for reopening the assessment should be provided to the petitioner along with an opportunity to respond to the same. The communication is impugned on the ground that these requirements were not complied with.
Mr. A.P. Srinivas, learned Standing Counsel, accepts notice for the respondents. Both the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents state that the contentious issues relating to the provisions of reassessment were laid to rest in the recent Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India -vs- Ashish Agarwal, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 543. In particular, it is stated that the amended procedure is made applicable both in respect of notices issued prior to 01.04.2021 and subsequent thereto.
In view of the settled legal position, the impugned communication is quashed and the matter is remanded for further proceedings in accordance with paragraphs 26 and 27 of the Judgment in Union of India -vs- Ashish Agarwal cited supra.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
