Subscribe to BCA Journal Know More

September 2024

Reassessment — Notice — Limitation — New procedure — Extension of period of limitation by 2020 Act — Supreme Court ruling in UOI vs. Ashish Agarwal [2022] 444 ITR1 (SC) — Effect — Notice for reassessment u/s. 148 after 31st March, 2021 for A.Y. 2015–16 — Extension of period not applicable where limitation had already expired — Notice does not relate back to original date — 2020 Act would not extend limitation

By Keshav Bhujle and Ritu Punjabi, Advocates
Reading Time 12 mins

Hexaware Technologies Ltd. vs. ACIT

[2024] 464 ITR 430 (Bom)

A.Y.: 2015–16

Date of order: 3rd May, 2024

Ss. 119, 147, 148, 148A(b), 148A(d) and 149 of ITA 1961

41. (A) Reassessment — Notice — Limitation — New procedure — Extension of period of limitation by 2020 Act — Supreme Court ruling in UOI vs. Ashish Agarwal [2022] 444 ITR1 (SC) — Effect — Notice for reassessment u/s. 148 after 31st March, 2021 for A.Y. 2015–16 — Extension of period not applicable where limitation had already expired — Notice does not relate back to original date — 2020 Act would not extend limitation.

(B) Reassessment — Notice — Document identification number — CBDT Circular stipulating mention of document identification number — Binding nature of — Failure to mention document identification number in notice — Violation of mandatory requirement — Notice invalid.

(C) Reassessment — Notice — Jurisdiction — Faceless assessment scheme — Specific jurisdiction assigned to jurisdictional Assessing Officer or faceless Assessment Officer under sch

Read More
Download PDF

You May Also Like

Reassessment — Change of law — Jurisdiction — Notice issued under existing law and reassessment order passed and becoming final — Issue of notice u/s. 148A pursuant to subsequent direction of Supreme Court in UOI vs. Ashish Agarwal — Without jurisdiction and therefore quashed

Reassessment — New procedure — Notice — Reason to believe — Necessity of live link between belief and material available — Information from “insight” portal that assessee had transacted with mutual fund found to be involved in scam — No nexus between belief and material — AO not clear whether assessee had claimed loss or dividend in mutual fund — Non-application of mind — Notices and order set aside.