HC declined to interfere when assessee did not challenge order u/s 148A(d)

Assessee did not challenge order u/s 148A(d) and participated in the re-assessment proceedings – High Court declined to interfere

In a recent judgment, Rajasthan High Court declined to interfere with re-assessment proceedings as the assessee did not challenge the order under section 148A(d) and participated in the re-assessment proceedings in the midst of the assessment proceedings, filed petition for quashing of reassessment proceedings.

ABCAUS Case Law Citation:
4503 (2025) (04) abcaus.in HC

In the instant case, the assessee / Petitioner had challenged the impugned order passed   under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act).

According to the Petitioner, the order passed was in excess of the jurisdiction and authority of law, inasmuch as earlier, for the same assessment year, not only scrutiny under Section 143(3) was made but later on rectification application was filed under Section 154 of the Act, rectification proceedings were also initiated and another order was passed.

It was contended that notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act was issued seeking to reopen   the assessment on the allegation that certain part of income had escaped assessment, wherein detailed proceedings were drawn and again an order was passed under Section 148A(d) of the Act. 

It was submitted that while passing the aforesaid orders, audit report was very much available on record for perusal and scrutiny and also taken into consideration. However, fresh   proceedings under Section 148A of the Act were again initiated, leading to passing of impugned order under Section 148A(d) of the Act, which was nothing but mere change of opinion in respect of the material, which was already available for perusal and scrutiny and was, infact, considered while passing the earlier orders of assessment, rectification order and re-assessment proceedings in respect of the same assessment year.

The Revenue contended that though the order under Section 148A(d) of the Act for   reopening of re-assessment was passed way-back, the petitioner did not challenge the order and accepted the same and faced the re-assessment proceedings. The petition has been filed after a long delay of almost six months.  Therefore, the petition was liable to be dismissed.

The Hon’ble High Court observed that the impugned order reopening of assessment in exercise of power under Section 148A read with Section 148 of the Act was passed way back. In the entire petition there was no cause shown for such delay in filing this petition. The petitioner did not challenge the order for five months and participated in the re-assessment  proceedings and now in the midst of the assessment proceedings, the petitioner filed the instant petition. 

The Hon’ble High Court further opined that it was not a case where any addition had been made but it was only a case of reopening of assessment. In similar case, where there was delay in challenging the order passed under Section 148A(d) of the Act, the Court had observed that when the petitioner did not challenge the reopening of the assessment for a reasonably long period, the order attained finality. It was further observed that in the midst of re-assessment proceedings, the order of reopening assessment had been challenged.  Onthose factual premise, the Court declined to exercise discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to entertain challenge to the validity of the order under section 148A(d).

The Hon’ble High Court observed that irrespective of the merits of the case, the petitioner itself was indolent and the order of re-assessment had not been challenged within a reasonable time but after almost five months during which the assessee-petitioner had participated in the process of re-assessment after reopening, therefore, no case is made out to grant indulgence on this ground.

The Hon’ble High Court keeping in view that challenge before it was not to order of assessment but order of reopening assessment, no additional tax liability had been imposed  the issues, raised in the petition, shall be open to be raised at the stage of reassessment before the assessing authority, who shall consider the same before passing the order of re-assessment.

Accordingly, the petition was dismissed.

Download Full Judgment Click Here >>

• No separate compensation for loss of love and affection under MV Act – SC
• Trust accredited by National Open School eligible for registration u/s 12AB & u/s 80G
• Delay in furnishing Form 10B – Covid Period to be excluded as per decision of Supreme Court
• Section 271AAB does not grant any immunity from penalty in terms of section 273B
• Engagement of ‘Young Professional’ in the office of the PCCT Bihar & Jharkhand