Mr. Kishan Kumar Thotakura vs The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax

Headnote AI-drafted · Editorially reviewed

These writ petitions were filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging orders passed under Section 148A(d) and notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for various assessment years. The petitioners contended that the impugned orders and notices were arbitrary, illegal, bad in law, void ab initio, violative of principles of natural justice, and violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 265 of the Constitution of India as well as Section 149 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

The Andhra Pradesh High Court at Amaravati, constituted by a Division Bench of G. Narendar J. and Hiranmayee Mandava J., took up the batch of writ petitions together as they involved common questions of law pertaining to reassessment proceedings initiated by income tax authorities under the amended provisions introduced by the Finance Act, 2021. The petitioners challenged the constitutional validity and legal sustainability of the reopening/reassessment notices and the preliminary orders passed under Section 148A(d).

The High Court examined the scope of Section 148A and Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as amended by the Finance Act, 2021, and the conditions precedent for issuance of reassessment notices, including the requirements of supplying information to the assessee and affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing before passing an order under Section 148A(d). The Court considered the law laid down by the Supreme Court and various High Courts on the subject and proceeded to dispose of the petitions with appropriate directions.

Catchwords: Income Tax Reassessment Section 148 Section 148A Finance Act 2021 Notice of Reopening Writ of Mandamus Article 226 Principles of Natural Justice Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of Constitution Section 149 limitation Void ab initio Arbitrary orders