Are you looking for a legal research tool ?
Get Started
Do check other products like LIBIL, a legal due diligence tool to get a litigation check report and Case Management tool to monitor and collaborate on cases.

Income Tax Officer v. Kayathwal Estate Private Limited

Income Tax Officer v. Kayathwal Estate Private Limited

(Supreme Court Of India)

Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 882/2022 | 14-02-2022

1. Having heard Shri Balbir Singh, learned ASG and in the facts and circumstances of the case more particularly at the time of Scrutiny Assessment under Section 143(3), the Assessing Officer had asked for the details regarding the unsecured loan taken by the Assessee during the year under consideration and the Assessee furnished the details as asked for and thereafter, after perusing the details so furnished by the Assessee, the Assessing Officer passed an order under Section 143(3) of the. Therefore, it cannot be said that there was any suppression on the part of the Assessee in not disclosing true an correct facts. It is required to be noted that even the re-assessment proceeding were initiated beyond the period of four years. Under the circumstances, the High Court is absolutely justified in quashing the re-assessment proceedings and the notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act. No interference of this Court is called for in exercise of powers under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.

2. With this, the Special Leave petition stands dismissed. of.

3. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

Advocate List
  • Mr. Balbir Singh, ASG Mr. Mukesh Verma, Adv. Mr. Shyam Gopal, Adv. Ms. Suhasini Sen, Adv. Ms. Chinmayee Chandra, Adv Mr. Raj Bahadur Yadav, AOR

  • None.

Bench
  • HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.R. SHAH
  • HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V. NAGARATHNA
Eq Citations
  • (2022) 326 CTR (SC) 494
  • [2022] 442 ITR 507 (SC)
  • [2022] 287 TAXMAN 385
  • LQ/SC/2022/1381
Head Note

Income Tax Act, 1961 — S. 147 — Reassessment — Impermissibility of, after four years — Scrutiny assessment under S. 143(3) — Assessing Officer had asked for details regarding unsecured loan taken by assessee during year under consideration and assessee furnished details as asked for — Assessing Officer passed an order under S. 143(3) — It cannot be said that there was any suppression on the part of assessee in not disclosing true and correct facts — Reassessment proceeding initiated beyond period of four years — Held, High Court is absolutely justified in quashing reassessment proceedings and notice under S. 148 — Constitution of India, Art. 136