Case Law Details
Tmen Systems Private Limited Vs ACIT (Supreme Court of India)
The matter arose from reassessment proceedings initiated under the Income Tax Act, 1961 for Assessment Year 2020–21. The assessee challenged a notice dated 21.03.2024 issued under Section 148A(b), the order dated 12.04.2024 passed under Section 148A(d), and the consequential notice dated 12.04.2024 issued under Section 148. The petition before the Delhi High Court sought quashing of these actions on the ground that they were issued without authority and jurisdiction, violated the provisions of the Act and principles of natural justice, and infringed Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 265 and 300A of the Constitution.
Read HC Judgment in this case: Section 148 Proceedings Upheld Procedurally as HC Advises Assessee to Submit Reply to AO
After receiving the notice under Section 148A(b), the assessee sought 15 days’ time to file a reply through a letter dated 28.03.2024. A further notice dated 29.03.2024 granted time until 10.04.2024 to submit the response. However, the reply was filed on 28.04.2024, beyond the stipulated date. In the reply, the assessee again sought additional time and stated that the authorities had not provided a party-wise breakup of ₹3,16,00,000, making reconciliation with its books difficult. Meanwhile, the authorities had already passed the order under Section 148A(d) on 12.04.2024 and issued a notice under Section 148 initiating reassessment proceedings.
Subsequently, the Assessing Officer issued a notice dated 21.07.2025 under Section 142(1) seeking further information. The assessee then filed the writ petition on 23.09.2025, contending that the notice under Section 148A(b) was vague and lacked specific information suggesting escapement of income, and that the order under Section 148A(d) was based on a verification report unrelated to the petitioner.
The respondents argued that the petition had been filed nearly one and a half years after the order dated 12.04.2024. They also submitted that although the assessee had sought time to file a reply, it had not furnished the information sought under Section 142(1) and should instead appear before the Assessing Officer to provide the necessary details.
The Delhi High Court observed that the petition had been filed after more than one and a half years from the date of the order under Section 148A(d). Considering the facts and the notice issued under Section 142(1), the Court held that the appropriate course was for the petitioner to appear before the Assessing Officer and make submissions on facts and law. The Assessing Officer was directed to consider those submissions and proceed in accordance with law, with reference to the Supreme Court decision in Dehri Rohtas Light Rly. Co. Ltd. v. District Board, Bhojpur (1992) 2 SCC 598. The writ petition was accordingly disposed of.
The assessee challenged the High Court’s decision before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court condoned the delay but held that there was no good ground to interfere with the impugned order in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution. Consequently, the Special Leave Petition was dismissed and pending applications were disposed of.
FULL TEXT OF THE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT/ORDER
1. Delay condoned.
2. We do not find a good ground to interfere with the impugned order/judgment in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the special leave petition stands dismissed.
3. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
Author Bio
