# Buddha Sortex Rice Industries Pvt. Ltd., Deoria v. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Gorakhpur & Ors

- **Citation:** (2022) 5 ILRA 887
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-03-29
- **Case number:** Writ Tax No. 449 of 2022
- **Bench:** Surya Prakash Kesarwani, Jayant Banerji
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/buddha-sortex-rice-industries-pvt-ltd-deoria-v-principal-commissioner-of-income-48603
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

A. Tax Law - The Income Tax Act, 1961 -
Section 148 - Normally the period of limitation
which is available to the assessing authority is
four years i.e., till 31.03.2020. The aforesaid
period was extended for one year by the
Ordinance,
2020
and
notification
issued
thereafter. Thus, the normal period of limitation
available to the Assessing Authority on the facts
of the present case was till 31.03.2021. The
impugned notice issued by the Assessing
Authority is wholly valid and the same has been
issued well within the period of limitation. (Para
9)
Writ Petition Dismissed. (E-10)

## Text

5 All. Buddha Sortex Rice Industries Pvt. Ltd., Deoria Vs. Principal Commissioner of Income
 Tax, Gorakhpur & Ors.
887
private
persons/NGO.
Hence,
any
information uploaded thereon, cannot be
used against anyone.

20. In the nomination paper filed by
respondent No.2 , the name has been
correctly mentioned. There is nothing on
record to suggest what is sought to be
argued. The only prayer made is that
respondent No.2 should be asked to furnish
the information which he had even failed to
furnish in response to an application filed
by the petitioner under the Right to
Information Act. We may only add here
that the Right to Information Act provides
for complete remedies for redressal of
grievance of any of the applicant regarding
denial
or
furnishing
of
incomplete
information.

21. For the reasons mentioned above,
we find this petition to be totally
misconceived, filed with ulterior motive by
a political person, without disclosing his
complete
credentials
and
concealing
material facts from the Court. Hence, the
same is dismissed. To discourage filing of
such frivolous petitions, in our opinion, the
petitioner deserves to be burdened with
cost of ₹1,00,000/-. The same is directed to
be deposited by him within a period of six
weeks with the Viklang Kendra, Bharadwaj
Ashram, Jawaharlal Nehru Road, Muir
Road, Prayagraj - 211002.

22. A copy of this order be sent to the
aforesaid Viklang Kendra for information
and availing appropriate remedy in case the
aforesaid amount is not deposited by the
petitioner within the time permitted.
----------
(2022)05ILR A887
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 29.03.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SURYA PRAKASH
KESARWANI, J.
THE HON'BLE JAYANT BANERJI, J.

Writ Tax No. 449 of 2022

Buddha Sortex Rice Industries Pvt. Ltd.,
Deoria ...Petitioner
Versus
Principal Commissioner of Income Tax,
Gorakhpur & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Parv Agarwal

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Gaurav Mahajan

A. Tax Law - The Income Tax Act, 1961 -
Section 148 - Normally the period of limitation
which is available to the assessing authority is
four years i.e., till 31.03.2020. The aforesaid
period was extended for one year by the
Ordinance,
2020
and
notification
issued
thereafter. Thus, the normal period of limitation
available to the Assessing Authority on the facts
of the present case was till 31.03.2021. The
impugned notice issued by the Assessing
Authority is wholly valid and the same has been
issued well within the period of limitation. (Para
9)
Writ Petition Dismissed. (E-10)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Surya Prakash
Kesarwani, J.
&
Hon'ble Jayant Banerji, J.)

1. Heard Sri Parv Agarwal, learned
counsel for the petitioner and Sri Gaurav
Mahajan, learned Senior Standing Counsel
for the Income Tax Department.

2. This writ petition has been filed
praying for the following reliefs:-
888 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

"(a) Issue a writ, order or
direction in the nature of certiorari
quashing the notice dated 30.03.2021
issued by the respondent no.2 under Section
148 of the Act as also the order dated
28.02.2022 passed by6 respondent no.3,
rejecting the objections filed by the
petitioner against the 'reasons to believe'
for assumption of jurisdiction against the
petitioner for th Assessment Year 2015-16.

(b) Issue a writ, order or
direction in the nature of mandamus
restraining
the
respondents
from
proceeding
with
the
reassessment
proceedings against the petitioner for the
AY-2015-16."

3. The only argument advanced by the
learned counsel for the petitioner before us
is that the normal period of limitation for
issuing notice under Section 148 of the
Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred
to as the Act of 1961) would be six years
where escapement of income from tax is
one lacs or more. In this regard, he referred
to the provision of Section 149(1) (b) of the
Act of 1961. He further submits that since
prior
approval
of
the
Principal
Commissioner in terms of provisions of
Section 151 of the Act of 1961 has not been
obtained for issuance of notice under
Section 148(1) of the Act of 1961,
therefore, issuance of notice after expiry of
four years but before expiry of six years,
the notice is bad and without jurisdiction.
No other arguments have been made before
us by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

4. Sri Gaurav Mahajan, learned Senior
Standing Counsel appearing for the Income
Tax Department submits that the normal
period of limitation for re-opening as
provided under Section 149(1) (a) of the
Act of 1961 is four years in all cases but
where four years have expired but not six
years and escaped assessment amounts to
or likely to amount to Rs. one lac or more
for that year, then still notice may be issued
but after obtaining approval of the Principal
Commissioner as per the provisions of
Section 151 of the Act of 1961.

5. Since, in the present set of fact, the
normal period of limitation for re-opening
for the assessment year 2015-2016 was
available till 31.3.2020 which was extended
by the Taxation and other Law ( Relaxation
of Certain Provisions) Ordinance, 2020 and
the notification issued thereunder, taking
into the situation created due to pandemic
Covid-19, the normal period of limitation
was available till 31.3.2021. The impugned
notice has been issued prior to the expiry of
normal period of limitation, therefore, the
impugned notice does not suffer from any
infirmity and is valid.

6. We have carefully considered the
submissions of the learned counsel for the
parties.

7. Section 149 of the Act of 1961
provides for limitation for issuance of
notice under Section 148. Section 149 as is
extended prior to amendment of Finance
Act, 2021 is reproduced below:

"149. Time limit for notice- (1)
No notice under section 148 shall be issued
for the relevant assessment year-

(a) if four years have elapsed
from the end of the relevant assessment
year, unless the case falls under clause (b)
or clause (c).

(b) if four years, but not more
than six years, have elapsed from the end
of the relevant assessment year unless the
income chargeable to tax which has
5 All. Pushpa Yadav Vs. Income Tax Office, Ghaziabad & Ors.
889
escaped assessment amounts to or is likely
to amount to one lakh rupees or more for
that year,

(c) if four years, but not more
than sixteen years, have elapsed from the
end of the relevant assessment year unless
the income in relation to any asset
(including financial interest in any entity)
located outside India, chargeable to tax,
has escaped assessment."

8. The provisions of Section 149(1) of
the Act of 1961 are plain and unambiguous.
Bare reading of clause (a) of sub-section
(1) of Section 149 leaves no manner of
doubt that normal period of limitation for
issuance of notice under Section 148 of the
Act of 1961 is four years from the end of
the relevant assessment year, unless the
case falls under clause (b) or clause (c).
Thus, after normal period of limitation of
four years has expired, larger period of
limitation under clause (b) or (c) of subsection (1) of Section 149 of the Act of
1961 may be invoked, if circumstances so
exist.

9. In the present set of fact, the normal
period of limitation of four years was
available to the Assessing Authority till
31.3.2020 which was extended for one year
by the aforesaid Ordinance, 2020 and the
notification issued thereunder. Thus, the
normal period of limitation available to the
Assessing Authority on the facts of the
present case was till 31.3.2021. The
impugned notice under Section 148 of the
Act, 1961 was issued by the Assessing
Authority on 30.3.2021 which does not
require any prior approval of the Principal
Commissioner in terms of the then existing
provisions of Section 151 of the Act, 1961.
Therefore, the impugned notice under
Section 148 of the Act of 1961 issued by
the Assessing Authority is wholly valid and
same has been issued well within the period
of limitation.

10. For all the reasons aforestated, we
do not find any merit in this writ petition.
Consequently, the writ petition fails and is
hereby dismissed.
----------
(2022)05ILR A889
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 12.04.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SURYA PRAKASH
KESARWANI, J.
THE HON'BLE JAYANT BANERJI, J.

Writ Tax No. 564 of 2022

Pushpa Yadav ...Petitioner
Versus
Income Tax Officer, Ghaziabad & Ors.
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Mahandra Pratap, Sri Anurag Yadav, Sri
R.R. Agarwal (Sr. Advocate)

Counsel for the Respondents:
A.S.G.I., Sri Gaurav Mahajan, Sri Gopal
Verma, Sri Krishna Agarwal

A. Tax Law - Income Tax Act, 1961 -
Section 148 - The Court did not find any
discrepancy in the reason to believe recorded by
the authority in notice under Section 148 of the
Act.
The
authority
proceeded
with
the
information received from the Investigation
Wing and after Independent verification, he
came to the conclusion the assessee has made
huge cash. (Para 11)
Writ Rejected. (E-10)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Surya Prakash
Kesarwani, J.