Union of India v. Sunil Mohta

ORDER

16.12.2024

¶1Mr. S.C. Keyal, learned counsel appears for the review petitioner. No one appears for the respondent/writ petitioner, even though notices have been issued twice.

¶2As per the Office Note, service report has not been received from the respondent no.1. However, in view of the fact that 30 days have lapsed from the date of issuance of the second notice, notice is deemed to be served upon the respondent no.1, in terms of Section 27 of the General Clauses Act.

¶3The review petitioner's counsel submits that the impugned order dated

21.11.2022 passed in WP(C) 7116/2002 should be reviewed, in view of the fact that the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India & Others vs. Ashish Agarwal, reported in AIR 2022 SC 2781, had been wrongly applied while disposing of the case.

¶4The review petitioner's counsel submits that the decision of the Supreme Court in Ashish Agarwal (supra) is not applicable to the instant case, as the notice issued to the respondent under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 had been issued on 31.03.2021, i.e. within the time limit. He submits that the decision of the Supreme Court would only be applicable in respect of proceedings relating to past assessment orders, provided that the notice issued Page No.# 3/4 under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act had been issued on or after 1st April, 2021.

¶5I have heard the learned counsel for the review petitioner.

¶6On perusing the impugned order dated 21.11.2022, this Court finds that the writ petition had been disposed of, in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Ashish Agarwal (supra) and Instruction No.01/2022 dated

11.05.2022 issued by the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Central Board of Direct Taxes, ITJ Section. However, in the case before this Court, the notice had been issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act on 31.03.2021 and the same is not in consonance with the decision of the Supreme Court in Ashish Agarwal (supra), wherein it has been held that the benefit of the new provisions of the Income Tax Act would be made available in respect of proceedings relating to past assessment orders, provided the Notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act had been issued on or after 1st April, 2021. The same has also been reiterated in another Supreme Court judgment passed in the case of Union of India & Others vs. Rajeev Bansal, reported in 2024 0 Supreme(SC) 854.

¶7In view of the above reasons, this Court is of the view that the review petitioner has made out a case of review of the impugned order dated

21.11.2022 passed in WP(C) 7116/2002. The impugned order dated 21.11.2022 passed in WP(C) 7116/2002 is accordingly recalled and the writ petition is restored to file. Page No.# 4/4

¶8The review petition is accordingly allowed. List the writ petition after the vacation.

JUDGE Comparing Assistant

PageoNo.#o1/4 GAHC010293792023 ooooooo ooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooooTHEoGAUHATIoHIGHoCOURTo (HIGHoCOURToOFoASSAM,oNAGALAND,oMIZORAMoANDoARUNACHALoPRADESH)o CaseoNo.o:ooReview.Pet./68/2024 UNIONoOFoINDIA THROUGHoTHEoSECRETARYoMINISTRYoOFoFINANCEoDEPTT.oOFoREVENUE oHAVINGoITSoOFFICEoAToTHEoCENTRALoSECRETARIAToNORTHoBLOCKoNEWo DELHI-110001 2:oINCOMEoTAXoOFFICER W-1oSILCHAR oHAVINGoHISoOFFICEoAToAAYKARoBHAWANoPWDoROAD oSILCHAR oASSAM-788001 o3:oPRINCIPALoCOMMISSIONERoOFoINCOMEoTAX oSHILLONG HAVINGoHISoOFFICEoAToAAYKARoBHAWANoMAHATMAoGANDHIoROADo SHILLONGoMEGHALAYA-793001 o4:oNATIONALoFACELESSoASSESSMENToCENTRE.oDELHI HAVINGoITSoOFFICEoATo2NDoFLOOR oJAWAHARLALoNEHRUoSTADIUMoDELHI-110003 oVERSUS SUNILoMOHTA S/OoKISHANoLALoMOHTAoHAVINGoHISoRESIDENCEoAToJANIGANGoBAZAR oSILCHAR oCACHAR-788001 o------------ oAdvocateoforo:oMR.oSoCoKEYAL Advocateoforo:oappearingoforoSUNILoMOHTA ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo Page No.# 2/4 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA