Madhya Pradesh High Court
Anil Kumar Handa vs Income Tax Officer on 3 May, 2023
Author: Sheel Nagu
1
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
WP No.10251 of 2023
(ANIL KUMAR HANDA Vs INCOME TAX OFFICER AND OTHERS)
Dated: 03/05/2023
Shri Sapan Usrethe - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Siddharth Sharma - Jr. Standing Counsel for respondent/Revenue.
_____________________________________________________________
The issue involved herein has though been prima facie considered by
this Court in W.P. No.6738/2023 and an interim order dated 27.04.2023 was
passed staying the impugned order passed u/S 148-A(d) of the Income Tax
Act (for brevity "the Act") and consequential notice u/S 148 of the Amended
Income Tax Act but learned counsel for rival parties have brought to the
notice of this Court certain subsequent events which include judicial
pronouncements of different High Courts which are as follows:
(i) Division Bench of Delhi High Court in judgment dated 31.08.2022
passed in W.P. (C) No.12541/2022 & CM APPLs.37959-37961/2022
(Salil Gulati vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and others)
held while considering similar controversy in the backdrop of the
decision of the Apex Court in Union of India vs. Ashish Agarwal,
2022 SCC OnLine SC 543, that provisions of Taxation and other Laws
(Relaxation and Amendment of Certain provisions) Act, 2020 ('TOLA'
for brevity) is required to be taken into account while calculating the
period of limitation u/S 149 of the Act to judge the legality and validity
of a notice issued u/S 148 of the Amended Income Tax Act.
(ii) Division Bench of Gujarat High Court took the same view on
07.02.2023 in a bunch of petitions including Special Criminal
Application No.5059/2021 (Keenara Industries (P) Ltd. vs. Income
Tax Officer), Division Bench of Allahabad High Court in judgment
dated 22.02.2023 passed in bunch of petitions including Writ Tax
No.1079/2022 (Rajeev Bansal and others vs. Union of India and
others) and Division Bench of Orissa High Court in judgment dated
01.11.2022 passed in WP No.1608/2022 (Stalco Consultancy &
Systems (P) Ltd. vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax and
another) took a contrary view that the provisions of TOLA shall not be
taken into account while calculating the period of limitation u/S 149 of
the Amended Income Tax Act for adjudicating the validity of notice
u/S 148.
(iii) The decision of Delhi High Court in the case of Salil Gulati
(supra) was assailed by the assessee but the SLP has since been
dismissed on 11.04.2023.
(iv) The Division Bench decision of Allahabad High Court in Rajeev
Bansal (supra) was also assailed by the Revenue before the Apex
Court in SLP (C) No.6706/2022 whereby the said decision in the case
of Rajeev Bansal (supra) has been stayed by order dated 13.04.2023.
(v) Learned counsel for the assessee has further informed that after
considering all the aforesaid developments, the Coordinate Bench of
this Court in WP No.5812/2023 on 01.05.2023 has restrained the
Revenue in a similar matter from taking coercive steps against the
assess and the said petition is pending adjudication till date.
(vi) Learned counsel for the Revenue has further informed that
attempts are being made to seek transfer of pending cases before
various High Courts to Supreme Court. Revenue is expected to
produce the relevant documents in this regard.
2. In view of above, there is a nebulous situation which needs to be
clarified by the Apex Court where the controversy in question is pending.
3. Since the assessee has already been protected earlier in similar cases
which are pending adjudication, the impugned order dated 26.07.2022
(Annexure P/2) passed u/S 148-A(d) of the Amended Income Tax Act and the
consequential impugned notice dated u/S 148 of the Act dated 27.07.2022
(Annexure P/1) shall remain stayed till next date of hearing.
4. List after ensuing summer vacation.
(Sheel Nagu) (Hirdesh)
Judge Judge
YS
Digitally signed by YOGESH
KUMAR SHIRVASTAVA
Date: 2023.05.04 18:51:30
+05'30'
