2025 (5) TMI 1182 - HC - Income Tax

Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - period of limitation - HELD THAT - As explained by the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal 2024 (10) TMI 264 - SUPREME COURT (LB) the period from the date of the issuance of the notice till 04.05.2022 the date on which the Supreme Court had rendered the decision in Union of India Ors. v. Ashish Agarwa 2022 (5) TMI 240 - SUPREME COURT is required to be excluded. Additionally the time provided till the date of providing the material which should have accompanied a notice under Section 148A (b) of the Act as well as the time available to the assessee to respond to the said notice is also required to be excluded by virtue of the Fourth Proviso to Section 149 (1) of the Act as applicable at the material time. In the present case the time period for issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act expired on 16.06.2022. However the impugned notice was issued on 20.07.2022 which is beyond the said period. Thus the notice was beyond the period of limitation. Concededly the said controversy is covered in favour of the Assessee by the decision of this court in Ram Balram Buildhome Pvt. Ltd. 2025 (2) TMI 55 - DELHI HIGH COURT Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal questions considered by the Court were:

(a) Whether the impugned notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) for the Assessment Year (AY) 2013-14 was issued within the prescribed period of limitation as stipulated under the Act and relevant statutory amendments.

(b) The applicability and effect of the amended provisions of the Act, particularly Section 148A, which came into force after 31.03.2021, on notices issued under Section 148 post that date.

(c) The impact of the Supreme Court's directions in Union of India v. Ashish Agarwal on notices issued under Section 148 between 01.04.2021 and 04.05.2022, including the requirement to treat such notices as show cause notices under Section 148A(b).

(d) The exclusion of specific time periods from the limitation period calculation under the Fourth Proviso to Section 149(1) of the Act, especially in light of the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020 (TOLA) and subsequent judicial pronouncements.

(e) Whether the Assessing Officer (AO) had jurisdiction to issue the impugned notice dated 20.07.2022, considering the extended and excluded periods for limitation.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue (a) and (b): Validity and limitation of the notice under Section 148 post-amendment

The relevant legal framework includes Sections 148, 148A, and 149 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as amended by the Finance Act, 2021, effective from 01.04.2021. Prior to the amendment, the procedure for issuance of notice under Section 148 was simpler. Post-amendment, Section 148A mandates a show cause notice and an opportunity for the assessee to respond before issuance of a notice under Section 148.

Precedents considered include the Delhi High Court's decision in Mon Mohan Kohli and other High Courts which invalidated notices issued after 31.03.2021 under the unamended provisions, holding that the amended procedure under Section 148A must be followed.

The Supreme Court in Union of India v. Ashish Agarwal upheld the applicability of the amended provisions to notices issued after 01.04.2021 and directed that all such notices issued between 01.04.2021 and 04.05.2022 be treated as show cause notices under Section 148A(b), with the AO required to provide the material relied upon to the assessee.

In the present case, the initial notice under Section 148 was issued on 30.06.2021, the last day of the extended limitation period under TOLA. This notice was deemed a show cause notice under Section 148A(b) by virtue of the Supreme Court's directions.

Issue (c) and (d): Exclusion of time periods and calculation of limitation

The limitation period for issuance of a notice under Section 148 is governed by Section 149 of the Act, which prescribes six years from the end of the relevant AY, extendable by TOLA to 30.06.2021 for AY 2013-14. The Supreme Court's decision in Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal clarified that the period from issuance of the notice till the Supreme Court's decision on 04.05.2022 must be excluded for limitation calculation. Further, the time granted to the assessee to respond to the show cause notice under Section 148A(b), as well as the AO's time to pass an order under Section 148A(d), must also be excluded under the Fourth Proviso to Section 149(1).

The Court relied heavily on the decision in Ram Balram Buildhome Pvt. Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer, which elucidated the interplay of these provisos and the necessity of providing the AO at least seven days post the assessee's response to pass an order under Section 148A(d). It was held that if the AO fails to complete this procedure within the prescribed period, the jurisdiction to issue the notice ceases.

Applying these principles, the Court found that the limitation period for issuance of the notice in the present case expired on 16.06.2022 after excluding the periods mandated by the Supreme Court decisions and statutory provisos. However, the impugned notice was issued on 20.07.2022, beyond the permissible period.

Issue (e): Jurisdiction of the AO to issue the impugned notice dated 20.07.2022

The AO had issued the original notice on 30.06.2021, which was valid as it was within the extended limitation period under TOLA. The AO provided material to the assessee on 25.05.2022, and the assessee responded on 09.06.2022. The AO then passed an order under Section 148A(d) on 19.07.2022 and issued the impugned notice on 20.07.2022.

However, the Court noted that the AO's time to pass the order under Section 148A(d) and issue the notice under Section 148 had expired on 12.07.2022, considering the exclusion of periods and the minimum seven-day requirement for the AO to act after the assessee's response. Since the impugned notice was issued after this date, it was beyond the jurisdictional period.

The Court rejected any competing argument that the AO's actions were within time, emphasizing the strict adherence to limitation periods and procedural safeguards introduced by the amendments and upheld by the Supreme Court.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

The Court held:

"As is apparent from the plain language of the fourth proviso to Section 149 (1) of the Act, it extends the period of limitation for issuing a notice under Section 148 of the Act so as to provide the AO a minimum of seven days to pass an order under Section 148A (d) of the Act."

"If the time available to the AO to decide whether it is a fit case for issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act in terms of Section 148A (d) of the Act is less than seven days after excluding the period as provided under the third proviso, then the period of three years or ten years as prescribed is required to be extended by such period so as to make available to the AO at least seven days to pass an order under Section 148A (d) of the Act and issue a notice under Section 148 of the Act."

"Plainly, if the AO is unable to complete such procedure within the period of limitation, the AO would cease to have the jurisdiction to issue such a notice."

"The period from the date of issuance of the notice till 04.05.2022, the date on which the Supreme Court had rendered the decision in Union of India & Ors. v. Ashish Agarwal (supra), is required to be excluded."

"Additionally, the time provided till the date of providing the material, which should have accompanied a notice under Section 148A (b) of the Act, as well as the time available to the assessee to respond to the said notice is also required to be excluded by virtue of the Fourth Proviso to Section 149 (1) of the Act."

"Since the period of limitation, as provided under Section 149 (1) of the Act, had expired prior to issuance of the impugned notice on 30.07.2022, the said is squarely beyond the period of limitation."

The Court concluded that the impugned notice dated 20.07.2022 was issued beyond the prescribed period of limitation and was therefore invalid. Accordingly, all proceedings pursuant to the impugned notice were set aside.