Yuvraj v. ITO Bhopal

Case snapshot

Sections / provisions: Section 148; 148A of Income-tax Act; 1961

Questions before the Court / Tribunal

• Yuvraj Vs Income-tax officer, Bhopal Forum-Madhya Pradesh High Court Date- 03rd March 2022 Sub-Whether notice dated 31st March 2022 served by email on 16th April, 2022 is a valid issue of notice u/s 148 of the Income-tax Act,1961 The Hon’ble High Court in this case was called upon to decide as to when the notice which was electronically signed on 31st March 2021 but was issued on 16th April, 2021 by e-mail, whether it can be said to have been validly issued in view of the law prevailing after 1st April, 2021 wherein the procedure laid down u/s 148A has to be followed. The court after noting the new provisions took no time to hold that the notice was bad in law and the reassessment proceedings were quashed with liberty to the department to follow the new law and act accordingly. Ramesh Patodia
• Which factual, statutory and procedural conditions controlled the requested relief?
• How did the forum apply the governing provisions to the evidence and procedural history recorded in this case?

Material facts and procedural background

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE SHEEL NAGU & HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANINDER SINGH BHATTI ON THE 3rd OF MARCH, 2022 WRIT PETITION No. 28293 of 2021 Between:- YUVRAJ S/O LATE SUKHVIR SINGH JAIN , AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, OCCUPATION: GOVT.EMPLOYEES H.A.-1, MUNSHI PREMCHAND PARISAR, AIRPORT ROAD, BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH) .....PETITIONER (BY SHRI ASHAY JAIN, ADVOCATE) AND 1. INCOME TAX OFFICER 3(1) INCOME TAX OFFICER MATRO WALK BUILDING, BITTAN MARKET, BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH) 2. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 AAYKAR BHAWAN, 48, ARERA HILLS BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH) 3. CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES THR. ITS CHAIRMAN NORTH BLOCK NEW DELHI (DELHI) 4. UNION OF INDIA THR. REVENUE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE MINISTRY OF FINANCE NORTH BLOCK NEW DELHI (DELHI) .....RESPONDENTS (BY SHRI SANJAY LAL, ADVOCATE) This appeal coming on for admission and interim relief this day, Hon’ble Shri Justice Maninder Singh Bhatti passed the following: ORDER The present petition has been filed by the petitioner while praying for grant of following reliefs:- I. To issue a Writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ order or direction, thereby quashing ‘the impugned notice no. ITBA/AST/S/148/2020-21/1032088407 (1) dated 31.03.2021 (served through email on 16.04.2021) (Annexure P/1) and the impugned notice

no.ITBA/AST/F/142(1)/2021-22/1037509888(1) dated 6.12.2021 (Annexure P/6), for being void and illegal; II. To issue a Writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ order or direction, thereby quashing and setting aside the impugned Explanation to Clause (A) (a) of Notification No. 20/2021, dated 31.03.2021 (Annexure P/2) for being void and illegal; III. To issue a Writ in the nature of Certiorari, or any other appropriate writ order or direction, thereby quashing and setting aside the Explanation to clause (A) (b) of Notification No. 38/2021, dated 27.04.2021 (Annexure P/3) for being void and illegal; IV . To grant any other relief, which the Hon’ble Court may deem just and proper on the facts and circumstances of the case, alongwith the cost of this petition.

2. The contention of the petitioner is to the effect that a newly enacted provision i.e. Section 148-A has been inserted in Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as ‘the Act, 1961’) makes it mandatory for the Assessing Officer to give a notice requiring the concerned assessee to furnish the information as regards his income including returns. According to the petitioner the newly inserted section 148-A of the Act, 1961 has come into force with effect from 1/04/2021. The petitioner submits that an impugned notice has been issued to the petitioner which has been issued under the omitted section 148 of the Act, 1961. Though the same is dated 31/03/2021 but the same was served upon the petitioner on 16/04/2021 through Email.

The contention of the petitioner is to the effect that since the proceedings for re-assessment were sought to be initiated after 1/04/2021 therefore, it was incumbent upon the Assessing Authority to first issue a notice under section 148-A upon the

petitioner and thereafter dealing with the same in accordance with the procedure laid down in section 148-A, a full fledged enquiry ought to have been conducted by giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner/assessee. Thus, according to the petitioner no notice directly under section 148 of the Act, 1961 could have been issued on 16/04/2021 when the old section 148 stood omitted upon insertion of new section 148-A which came into force with effect from 1/04/2021. Thus, the petitioner submits that the impugned notice which is contained in Annexure P/1 dated 31/03/2021 (served through Email on 16/04/2021) be quashed. The petitioner has also sought quashing of the notice dated 6/12/2021 which is contained in Annexure P/6 as well as the notification dated 31/03/2021 contained in Annexure P/2 and also the notification dated 27/04/2021 contained in Annexure P/3.

Appellant / petitioner / assessee submissions

The judgment does not separately label this side’s submissions in an independently extractable passage. No contention is inferred; read the full record.

Revenue / respondent submissions

The judgment does not separately label the respondent’s submissions in an independently extractable passage. No contention is inferred; read the full record.

Court / Tribunal analysis and reasoning

4. The aforesaid newly inserted section 148-A now specifically provides for issuance of a notice if the Assessing Officer takes a decision to initiate reassessment and therefore, a procedure has been laid down under section 148-A which is required to be adhered to by the Assessing Officer after 1/04/2021 i.e. the date on which the Finance Act, 2021 came into force. 5. The counsel for the parties were heard and during the course of hearing, the counsel for respondent/revenue Shri Sanjay Lal produced a letter dated 24/02/2022 bearing no. 1002 issued by Income Tax Officer - 3 (1) of Bhopal which was addressed to the counsel for the revenue and in the said letter it was stated that though in the notice which was issued to the petitioner herein, the date was mentioned as 31/03/2021 but, the system of the office of the respondents revealed that the Email to the petitioner was infact sent on 16/04/2021.

Operative decision and relief

the respondents the other reliefs as sought for by the petitioner in the relief clause have become redundant inasmuch as now there is no dispute about the date of issuance of the impugned notice. 7. Accordingly, the impugned notice dated 31/03/2021 (served through Email to the petitioner on 16/04/2021) stands quashed. However, it is left open for the respondents to take recourse to the procedure laid down in newly enacted section 148-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 if it is required under the law. 8. Thus, the writ petition stands allowed to the extent indicated above. ( SHEEL NAGU) (MANINDER SINGH BHATTI ) JUDGE JUDGE nn

Ratio and legal principle

The narrow proposition associated with Yuvraj v. ITO Bhopal concerns yuvraj vs income-tax officer, bhopal forum-madhya pradesh high court date- 03rd march 2022 sub-whether notice dated 31st march 2022 served by email on 16th april, 2022 is a valid issue of notice u/s 148 of the income-tax act,1961 the hon’ble high court in this case was called upon to decide as to when the notice which was electronically signed on 31st march 2021 but was issued on 16th april, 2021 by e-mail, whether it can be said to have been validly issued in view of the law prevailing after 1st april, 2021 wherein the procedure laid down u/s 148a has to be followed. the court after noting the new provisions took no time to hold that the notice was bad in law and the reassessment proceedings were quashed with liberty to the department to follow the new law and act accordingly. ramesh patodia The proposition cannot be separated from the judgment’s facts, the governing statutory version, the forum’s jurisdiction, and the exact relief recorded in WRIT PETITION No. 28293 of 2021.

For working-paper purposes, the decision should be cited only after matching the material facts and reading the passages under the judgment-grounded record above. The editorial outcome label “Quashed / set aside” is a navigation aid; it does not replace the operative order or explain every issue in a multi-issue case.

Why this judgment matters

This decision is relevant when a file raises the same central question identified in the source headnote: Yuvraj Vs Income-tax officer, Bhopal Forum-Madhya Pradesh High Court Date- 03rd March 2022 Sub-Whether notice dated 31st March 2022 served by email on 16th April, 2022 is a valid issue of notice u/s 148 of the Income-tax Act,1961 The Hon’ble High Court in this case was called upon to decide as to when the notice which was electronically signed on 31st March 2021 but was issued on 16th April, 2021 by e-mail, whether it can be said to have been validly issued in view of the law prevailing after 1st April, 2021 wherein the procedure laid down u/s 148A has to be followed. The court after noting the new provisions took no time to hold that the notice was bad in law and the reassessment proceedings were quashed with liberty to the department to follow the new law and act accordingly. Ramesh Patodia Its practical value lies in the way the Madhya Pradesh High Court connected the governing provisions—Section 148; 148A of Income-tax Act; 1961—to the procedural posture and evidence before it.

The authority level is High Court. That affects persuasive or binding weight, but authority level alone is never enough. Territorial jurisdiction, statutory period, the identity of the challenged order, and later appellate treatment must all be checked before the case is used in advice, a submission, or litigation strategy.

Practitioner action points

• Begin with the complete judgment and mark the paragraphs supporting the exact proposition relied upon.
• Match the statutory version of Section 148; 148A of Income-tax Act; 1961 and the decision date 2021-12-06; do not assume the current text is identical.
• Compare the notice, assessment, appeal or other procedural sequence with the chronology recorded in this case.
• Verify the stated later-history status and any review, appeal, SLP, curative or rectification proceedings before citation.
• Record why the client’s evidence is materially similar, and also record any fact capable of distinguishing the result.

Does this case match your facts?

Detailed reliance and distinction analysis

Identity check. Confirm that the cited cause title is Yuvraj v. ITO Bhopal, the proceeding is WRIT PETITION No. 28293 of 2021, and the decision is dated 2021-12-06. These fields are taken from the judgment record and should appear exactly in the citation note.

Bench check. The judgment identifies the coram as Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sheel Nagu; Hon'ble Mr. Justice Maninder Singh Bhatti. A later order by another bench, a larger bench, or a higher forum may alter the weight or interpretation of the proposition.

Provision check. The source associates the dispute with Section 148; 148A of Income-tax Act; 1961. The practitioner should place the historical statutory text next to the current text and identify every amendment, proviso, explanation, rule or notification that could change the analysis.

Fact check. The source issue is not a free-standing abstract rule. It arises from the concrete record summarized above. A reliable application note should list the common facts, the different facts, and whether each difference affects jurisdiction, admissibility, limitation, burden, computation or relief.

Remedy check. The recorded result is Quashed / set aside. Where a matter is remanded, set aside, partly allowed, or disposed with directions, the exact operative language is more important than a binary winner/loser label.

History check. The current closure state is REVIEW_APPEAL_SLP_CHECK_PENDING. If that state is pending, the page does not assert that no later case exists. It means the check remains open and must be completed at the point of professional reliance.

Section / provision impact

• Section 148 — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.
• 148A of Income-tax Act — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.
• 1961 — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.

Case network

• Divya Capital One (P) Ltd. v. ACIT — Delhi High Court · Quashed / set aside
• ITO (Exemption) v. Innovative Welfare and Educational Society — ITAT Delhi · Quashed / set aside
• Harsh Kaushal Corporation v. ITO — Bombay High Court · Quashed / set aside
• Maharashtra Oil Extraction Pvt. Ltd. v. Dy.CIT — Bombay High Court · Quashed / set aside

Related Finin2min resources

• Case Law Hub
• Search all 592 judgments
• Explore Reassessment & Reopening

Full judgment and source control

Read / download packaged judgment record

Source class: OFFICIAL_PRIMARY_SEARCH_PENDING · Repository status: PUBLISH_READY