Ved Prakash Agarwal , Huf Thru. Karta , Old Galla Mandi , v. Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax , Income Tax Office , Allahabad And Others

1. Facts of the case

For AY 2017-18 the HUF challenged reopening after Rs.75 lakh demonetisation deposits had been explained during scrutiny concluded 4 July 2019. It alleged change of opinion in the 13 March 2024 Section 148 A(d) order and 15 March 2024 notice.

Source: PDF pp.1, 2

2. Discussion by the Hon’ble Court

Petitioner relied on earlier scrutiny and change-of-opinion authorities. Revenue pointed to audit objections and the amended Section 148 explanation. The Court’s view was expressly prima facie.

Source: PDF pp.2, 3

3. Judicial decision

No case for interim relief was found. Counter affidavit within four weeks, rejoinder within two weeks thereafter; list 9 July 2024.

Source: PDF p.3

4. Outcome / in whose favour

Interim relief was refused, while the writ remained pending.

Source: PDF p.3

5. Expert Comments

AKHB editorial analysis, distinct from the Court’s findings. Subsequent treatment and current-law applicability have not been verified.

What was actually decided

The operative legal result is refusal of interim relief on a prima-facie assessment, followed by directions for counter and rejoinder affidavits. The Court did not finally determine whether the reopening was valid. The earlier scrutiny of the same Rs.75 lakh deposits and the taxpayer’s change-of-opinion argument are important to the controversy, but neither their recital nor the refusal of protection resolves the writ’s eventual merits.

Source: PDF p.2 · PDF p.3 · Paras.4–14

The unresolved statutory tension

The taxpayer relied on prior scrutiny of the deposits and the cited change-of-opinion authorities. Revenue relied on audit objections and its account of the amended Section 148 explanation, pointing to the objections reproduced in the notice. The order places these competing positions side by side without an extended reconciliation. The central question for a similar challenge is whether the precise information now relied on differs from the material and issue previously examined, and how the applicable statutory version affects that enquiry. The order is not authority for the proposition that every audit objection defeats a change-of-opinion challenge.

Source: PDF p.2 · PDF p.3 · Paras.4–11

Practical implications for the record and relief sought

A taxpayer considering a similar challenge should place the earlier Section 142(1) questions, replies and Section 143(3) order alongside the later audit objection, Section 148A(b) notice, response and Section 148A(d) reasons. That comparison identifies what the authority previously examined and what Revenue now says justified reopening. Separately identify the precise interim restraint requested and the stage reached in reassessment. Here the requested protection was refused while pleadings continued; the refusal neither quashed the proceedings nor finally dismissed the writ, and did not establish that the amount was escaped income.

Source: PDF p.1 · PDF p.2 · PDF p.3 · Paras.2–14

Source and temporal limits

The four-week counter-affidavit period and two weeks thereafter for rejoinder were directions in this 14 May 2024 order, with listing on 9 July 2024. They do not establish later compliance or the present status of the petition. The amendment description is recorded as Revenue counsel’s submission; no current-law clearance, subsequent appellate treatment or universal reopening rule is claimed.

Source: PDF p.3 · Paras.10–14