1. Whether the ITAT was justified in holding that the notice issued by the AO under Section 148 was bad in law when admittedly the impugned notice was issued in the case where the assessment was made under Section 143(1) of the Act but not under Section 143(3) of the Act. 2. Whether the ITAT was justified in holding that the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act was bad because it was based on mere change of opinion by overlooking the fact that there was no foundation to form any such opinion. 3 When admittedly the notice in question satisfied the requirements of Section 148 of the Act as it stood, namely, that first, it contained the facts constituting the "reasons to believe" and second, it furnished the necessary details for assessing the escaped income of the assessee, whether the ITAT was still justified in declaring the notice as being bad in law without taking into consideration any of these admitted facts. 4 In case, if the notice is held proper and legal, whether the finding recorded by the ITAT on the merits of the case on each item, which is subject matter of the notice, is legally sustainable. 5 12. In our considered view, the aforementioned four questions framed need to be answered by the High Court on their respective merits while deciding the appeal filed by the Revenue (appellant herein) under Section 260­A of the Act. 13. We are, therefore, of the view that such order is not legally sustainable in law and hence deserves to be set aside. 14. In view of the foregoing discussion, the appeal succeeds and is accordingly allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The case is remanded to the High Court for answering the aforementioned questions on merits in accordance with law.

REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL  APPEAL No.3450  OF 2019
(Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.32222 of 2017)
Pr. Commissioner of Income
Tax 6 ….Appellant(s)
VERSUS
Nokia India Pvt. Ltd.             ….Respondent(s)
               
J U D G M E N T
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal is filed against the final judgment
and   order   dated   21.04.2017  passed   by   the   High
Court of Delhi at New Delhi in ITA No.854 of 2016
whereby   the   Division   Bench   of   the   High   Court
1
dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant herein.
3. A few facts need mention hereinbelow for the
disposal of this appeal, which involves a short point.
4. By impugned order, the Division Bench of the
High   Court   dismissed   the   Revenue's   (appellant
herein)   appeal   filed   under   Section   260­A   of   the
Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the
Act”)   on   the   ground   that   it   did   not   involve   any
substantial question of law within the meaning of
Section 260­A of the Act.
5. In other words, the High Court was of the view
that since the appeal did not involve any substantial
question of law, it deserves dismissal in limine.
6. The appellant is the Revenue (Commissioner of
Income Tax) and the respondent is an assessee. The
issue arises out of an assessment year (1999­2000).
7. The   issue   essentially   relates   to   legality   and
correctness of the notice issued by the Assessing
2
Officer (AO) to the respondent under Section 148 of
the   Act   and   to   the   consequential   determination
made by the AO in the assessment order for which
the impugned notice was issued to the respondent.
8. The   objections   raised   by   the   respondent
(assessee) to the notice contending  inter alia  that
since the impugned notice was based on "change of
the opinion" and hence bad in law was upheld by
the   ITAT   resulting   in   allowing   the   respondent's
appeal   and   further   by   dismissing   the   Revenue's
appeal  by  the  High  Court.  The  Revenue  has   felt
aggrieved by the order of the High Court dismissing
their   appeal   in  limine  and   has   filed   the   present
appeal by way of special leave in this Court.
9. The   short   question,   which   arises   for
consideration in this appeal, is whether the High
Court was right in dismissing the Revenue's appeal
3
in  limine  holding   that   it   did   not   involve   any
substantial question of law.
10. Having   heard   the   learned   counsel   for   the
parties and on perusal of the record of the case, we
are of the view that the High Court was not justified
in dismissing the appeal on the ground that the
appeal did not involve any substantial question of
law.     We are, therefore, constrained to allow this
appeal, set aside the impugned order and remand
the   case   to   the   High   Court   for   deciding   the
appellant’s appeal afresh on merits in accordance
with law.
11. In   our   considered   view,   the   following
substantial  questions of law do arise in this appeal
filed   by   the   Revenue   (appellant   herein)   under
Section 260­A of the Act in the High Court against
the order dated 03.06.2016 passed by the ITAT in
Appeal No. 1870/DEL/2010 and the same should
4
have been framed by the High Court for deciding the
appeal on merits in accordance with law:
1.   Whether   the   ITAT   was   justified   in
holding   that     the   notice   issued   by   the   AO
under   Section   148       was   bad   in   law   when
admittedly   the   impugned  notice   was   issued
in  the  case  where the  assessment was made
under Section 143(1) of the Act but not under
Section 143(3) of the Act.
2.   Whether   the   ITAT   was   justified   in
holding that the notice issued under Section
148 of the Act was bad because it was based
on mere change of opinion by overlooking the
fact that there was no foundation to form any
such opinion.
3   When   admittedly   the   notice   in
question   satisfied   the   requirements   of
Section  148  of  the  Act  as   it  stood,  namely,
that first, it contained the facts constituting
the   "reasons   to   believe"   and   second,   it
furnished the necessary details for assessing
the escaped income of the assessee, whether
the   ITAT  was   still   justified   in  declaring  the
notice as being bad in law without taking into
consideration any of these admitted facts.
4   In  case,   if  the  notice   is  held  proper
and   legal,   whether   the   finding   recorded   by
the  ITAT  on  the  merits  of  the  case  on  each
item, which is subject matter of the notice, is
legally sustainable.
5
12. In   our   considered   view,   the   aforementioned
four questions framed need to be answered by the
High Court on their respective merits while deciding
the appeal filed by the Revenue (appellant herein)
under Section 260­A of the Act.
13. We are, therefore, of the view that such order
is not legally sustainable in law and hence deserves
to be set aside.
14. In view of the foregoing discussion, the appeal
succeeds and is accordingly allowed. The impugned
order is set aside. The case is remanded to the High
Court for answering the aforementioned questions
on merits in accordance with law.   
15. Since we have formed an opinion to remand
the case to the High Court for its fresh disposal on
merits, we have not expressed any opinion on the
merits of the case while deciding this appeal.  The
High   Court   will,   therefore,   decide   the   appeal
6
uninfluenced   by   any   observation   made   by   this
Court in this order.     
                                     .………...................................J.
                                   [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE]   
                               
     …...……..................................J.
             [DINESH MAHESHWARI]
New Delhi;
April 08, 2019
7