Smt Prameela Pasumarthi vs The Deputy 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, primarily on the grounds that the impugned orders and notices were arbitrary, illegal, bad in law, void ab initio and violative of principles of natural justice as well as Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 265 of the Constitution of India.

The petitioners, who are agriculturists and individual assessees from Andhra Pradesh, contended that the reassessment proceedings initiated against them were without jurisdiction and contrary to the provisions of Section 148A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as introduced by the Finance Act, 2021, and that the mandatory procedure prescribed thereunder was not followed before issuance of the impugned notices.

The High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati, constituted by a Division Bench comprising G. Narendar J and Hiranmayee Mandava J, took up the batch of writ petitions together for hearing and consideration, given the common questions of law and fact involved relating to the validity of reassessment notices and orders issued under Sections 148 and 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Catchwords: Income Tax Reassessment Section 148 Section 148A Writ of Mandamus Article 226 Natural Justice Void ab initio Assessment Year Notice Finance Act 2021