Sarika Kansal Vs ACIT (Delhi High Court)
Delhi High Court held that reassessment order is liable to be set aside as it was based on information that was fully examined in the earlier round of reassessment u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, appeal allowed and order set aside.
Facts- The petitioner’s challenge to the impugned order and the impugned notice is two-fold. First, that the impugned order has been passed without considering that the information on the basis of which it is premised was the subject matter of reassessment proceedings, which culminated in an order dated 03.2022 passed under Section 147 read with Section 144B of the Act. The petitioner’s contentions were accepted, and no addition was made. The petitioner contends that assessment cannot be opened twice for the same reason. The second ground is that the impugned notice is beyond the period of limitation. According to the petitioner, the limitation for issuance of the impugned notice expired on 31.03.2024.
Conclusion- Held that the balance sheet of TREPL as referred to was furnished by the petitioner in response to the notice issued under Section 143(2) of the Act in the earlier assessment proceedings. Thus, the same does not constitute any new information with the AO to reinitiate the reassessment proceedings for the second time. Section 148A(d) of the Act mandates that the AO is required to pass an order on the basis of record and considering the response to the notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act. In this case, the record indicates that the information on the basis of which the assessment is sought to be reopened was fully examined in the earlier round of reassessment under Section 147 read with Section 144B of the Act. Thus, the impugned order and the impugned notice are unsustainable and are accordingly, set aside.
