REPORTABLE IN 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 final judgment and order dated 21.04.2017 passed by High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in ITA No.854 of 2016 Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by ASHOK RAJ SINGH whereby Division Bench of High Court Date: 2019.04.08 17:01:19 IST Reason: 1 dismissed appeal filed by appellant herein. 3. few facts need mention hereinbelow for disposal of this appeal, which involves short point. 4. By impugned order, Division Bench of High Court dismissed Revenue's (appellant herein) appeal filed under Section 260 of Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as Act ) on ground that it did not involve any substantial question of law within meaning of Section 260 of Act. 5. In other words, High Court was of view that since appeal did not involve any substantial question of law, it deserves dismissal in limine. 6. appellant is Revenue (Commissioner of Income Tax) and respondent is assessee. issue arises out of assessment year (1999 2000). 7. issue essentially relates to legality and correctness of notice issued by Assessing 2 Officer (AO) to respondent under Section 148 of Act and to consequential determination made by AO in assessment order for which impugned notice was issued to respondent. 8. objections raised by respondent (assessee) to notice contending inter alia that since impugned notice was based on "change of opinion" and hence bad in law was upheld by ITAT resulting in allowing respondent's appeal and further by dismissing Revenue's appeal by High Court. Revenue has felt aggrieved by order of High Court dismissing their appeal in limine and has filed present appeal by way of special leave in this Court. 9. short question, which arises for consideration in this appeal, is whether High Court was right in dismissing Revenue's appeal 3 in limine holding that it did not involve any substantial question of law. 10. Having heard learned counsel for parties and on perusal of record of case, we are of view that High Court was not justified in dismissing appeal on ground that appeal did not involve any substantial question of law. We are, therefore, constrained to allow this appeal, set aside impugned order and remand case to High Court for deciding appellant s appeal afresh on merits in accordance with law. 11. In our considered view, following substantial questions of law do arise in this appeal filed by Revenue (appellant herein) under Section 260 of Act in High Court against order dated 03.06.2016 passed by ITAT in Appeal No. 1870/DEL/2010 and same should 4 have been framed by High Court for deciding appeal on merits in accordance with law: 1. Whether ITAT was justified in holding that notice issued by AO under Section 148 was bad in law when admittedly impugned notice was issued in case where assessment was made under Section 143(1) of Act but not under Section 143(3) of Act. 2. Whether ITAT was justified in holding that notice issued under Section 148 of Act was bad because it was based on mere change of opinion by overlooking fact that there was no foundation to form any such opinion. 3 When admittedly notice in question satisfied requirements of Section 148 of Act as it stood, namely, that first, it contained facts constituting "reasons to believe" and second, it furnished necessary details for assessing escaped income of assessee, whether ITAT was still justified in declaring notice as being bad in law without taking into consideration any of these admitted facts. 4 In case, if notice is held proper and legal, whether finding recorded by ITAT on merits of case on each item, which is subject matter of notice, is legally sustainable. 5 12. In our considered view, aforementioned four questions framed need to be answered by High Court on their respective merits while deciding appeal filed by Revenue (appellant herein) under Section 260 of Act. 13. We are, therefore, of view that such order is not legally sustainable in law and hence deserves to be set aside. 14. In view of foregoing discussion, appeal succeeds and is accordingly allowed. impugned order is set aside. case is remanded to High Court for answering aforementioned questions on merits in accordance with law. 15. Since we have formed opinion to remand case to High Court for its fresh disposal on merits, we have not expressed any opinion on merits of case while deciding this appeal. High Court will, therefore, decide 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 Pr. Commissioner of Income -tax-6 v. Nokia India Pvt. Ltd