SLP disposed of directing Assessing Officer to decide objections following Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal.

Issue

1. Whether an SLP filed against a High Court judgment quashing Section 148 notices and Section 148A(d) orders should be disposed of in terms of the Supreme Court judgment in Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal.
2. Whether Assessing Officers should be directed to decide the assessee’s objections in accordance with the law laid down in Rajeev Bansal, while preserving the assessee’s rights on non-concluded issues.

Facts

• Challenge to Reopening: The assessee challenged reopening proceedings, specifically an order passed under Section 148A(d) and consequential notices issued under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
• High Court Order: The High Court quashed the Section 148 notices and Section 148A(d) order, observing that the issue was covered by an earlier judgment of the High Court and noting that the assessee’s appeal filed in 2023 had remained pending before the Commissioner (Appeals) for almost two years.
• Revenue’s Appeal: The Revenue filed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) before the Supreme Court against the High Court’s decision.
• Precedent: The underlying legal issues regarding the validity and procedure of reassessment notices issued during the transition regime were subsequently adjudicated by the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal  .

Decision

• Disposal in Terms of Precedent: The SLP filed by the Revenue was disposed of in terms of the judgment rendered in Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal. (Partly in favour of revenue)
• Direction to Assessing Officer: The Assessing Officer was directed to dispose of the objections raised by the assessee in accordance with the legal principles laid down in Rajeev Bansal. (Partly in favour of revenue)
• Preservation of Assessee’s Remedies: The assessee remains at liberty to pursue all available rights and legal remedies in accordance with the law, except for specific issues that stand concluded by the Rajeev Bansal ruling. (Partly in favour of revenue)

Key Takeaways

• Binding Precedent on Reopening: Reassessment proceedings initiated under the transitional framework of Section 148/148A are governed by the Supreme Court ruling in Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal.
• Objection Disposal Mandate: Assessing Officers must independently consider and pass speaking orders on assessees’ objections by applying the law laid down in Rajeev Bansal.
• Scope of Legal Remedies: While issues explicitly settled in Rajeev Bansal cannot be re-agitated, assessees retain the right to challenge reassessment proceedings on any other distinct jurisdictional or factual grounds available under the law.