Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2023 (10) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (10) TMI 1140 - HC - Income TaxValidity of Reopening of assessment - order passed u/s 148A(d) - Period of limitation - Time limit for notice - scope of new regime as per section 148A - prescribed permissible timeline of six years - notices having been issued after passage of six years from the end of the relevant assessment year - HELD THAT:- As per the aforesaid amended section 149, notice under section 148 of the Act could be issued within three years from the end of the relevant assessment year. What is contemplated is that the assessing officer could reopen the case of the assessee beyond three years, but within 10 years from the end of the relevant assessment year. This could be done by the assessing officer within 10 years provided he is in possession of the books of accounts or documents or evidence revealing that income escaped assessment represented in form of asset was likely to exceed Rs. 50 lakhs. Further condition needed to be satisfied is the approval of the competent authority of the Income Tax under section 151 of the Act, which enable the assessing officer to assume the jurisdiction. What is to be noticed with relevance is that the First Proviso to section 149 of the Act as introduced in Finance Act, 2021, inter alia stipulated that no notice under section 148 shall be issued at any time in a case for the relevant Assessment Year beginning on or before 1st day of April 2021, if such notice could not have been issued at that time on account of being beyond the time limit specified under the provision as it stood immediately before the commencement of the Finance Act, 2021. In respect of the notice u/s 148 of the Act relating to the assessment year beginning on or before 01.04.2021, the operational conditions in the provision as they stood before 01.04.2021 were maintained. It thus included the factor of prescription of time limit-the limitation. The Supreme Court in Ashish Agarwal [2022 (5) TMI 240 - SUPREME COURT] striking balance between the notices issued by the Department under the old regime and the provisions brought into force under the new regime held that all notices issued under Section 148 of the Act between 01.04.2021 to 30.06.2021 shall be deemed to have been issued under section 148A of the Act to be treated as show-cause notices under section 148A(b) of the Act. The Supreme Court observed that new provisions substituted by the Finance Act, 2021 were remedial and benevolent in nature, came to be inserted with an object to protect the right and interests of the assessee as well to sub-serve the public interest. Thus, one of the direction and clarification in Ashish Agarwal (supra), is that all the defences that were available to the Assessee under section 149 under the Finance Act, 2021 and in law whatever rights are available to the assessing officer under the Finance Act, 2021 are kept open to be continued to be available. The notice which could not have been issued in the old regime period due to becoming time barred as per then operating provision, would also not be permissible to be issued post-01.04.2021. As already noticed, Section 149 as it stood immediately before commencement of Finance Act, 2021, that is before 01.04.2021 in the old regime inter alia provided for time limit for notice. It stated inter alia that no notice under section 148 shall be issued for the relevant assessment year, as per clause (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 escaped assessment, amounts to or is likely to amount to one lakh rupees or more for that year. Limitation of six years from the end of relevant assessment year operated as timeline in the old regime for issuance of notice u/s 148 beyond which period, it was not competent for the assessing officer to issue notice for reassessment. This embargo is made to continue in the new regime also. Now the reopening notices which related to the period prior to 01.04.2021, but issued between 01.04.2021 to 30.06.2021 came to be challenged before the Division Bench of this Court in Keenara Industries Pvt. Ltd [2023 (3) TMI 104 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] proceeded to hold that enacting the provisions in Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation & Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020, was not the permissible device whereby the time limit could be legitimately extended for the purpose of issuing Notices under Section 148, which were otherwise barred in terms of Section 149, as it exists in the old regime. The Taxation and Other Laws Act, 2020 was rightly viewed to be a secondary legislation. It was therefore held that secondary legislation would not override the principal legislation-the Finance Act, 2021. Also negatived by the Division Bench in Keenara Industries Pvt. Ltd. (supra) as per observations in paragraph 36 of the judgment, the concept of freezing the time limit. It was held that it was not permissible in law for the Revenue to travel back in time. Nor does the Taxation and Other Laws Act endorse to such concept. It was held that Notifications extending the due dates under the old provisions could not breath any more after the repeal of the old provisions. Therefore, the point is no more res integra that all original notices under section 148 of the Act referable to the old regime and issued between 01.04.2021 to 30.06.2021 would stand beyond the prescribed permissible timeline of six years from the end of Assessment Year 2013-14 and Assessment Year 2014-15. Therefore, all such notices when they would relate to Assessment Year 2013-14 or Assessment Year 2014-15 would be time barred as per the provisions of the Act as applicable in the old regime prior to 01.04.2021. Furthermore, these notices cannot be issued as per the amended provision of the Act. All the impugned notices in the respective petitions u/s 148 of the Act relatable to Assessment year 2013-14 or the assessment year 2014-15, as the case may be, are beyond the permissible time limit, therefore, liable to be treated illegal and without jurisdiction.
|