2025 (6) TMI 81 - HC - Income Tax

Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - limitation period prescribed u/s 149 - HELD THAT - The petitioner claimed that the proceedings are barred by limitation and Section 150 (1) of the Act would be inapplicable as there was no direction from the Supreme Court to reopen the case citing the rejection of such a prayer advanced by the Revenue AO rejected the petitioner s reply and passed an order dated 30.08.2024 u/s 148A(d) of the Act deeming it a fit case for reopening the assessment. AO also issued the impugned notice dated 30.08.2024 requiring the petitioner to furnish its return within a period of 90 days from date. The impugned notice is clearly beyond the period as stipulated u/s 149 (1) of the Act. However it is the Revenue s case that the impugned notice has been issued within the stipulated time by virtue of the non-obstante clause u/s 150 of the Act. Revenue claims that the impugned notice is premised on the findings and directions as embodied in the decision of Abhisar Buildwell (P.) Ltd 2023 (4) TMI 1056 - SUPREME COURT In the said decision the Supreme Court had held that in certain cases the assessing officer could exercise its powers u/s 147/148 of the Act even in cases which are related to a search conducted u/s 132 of the Act or a requisition made under Section 132A of the Act. Revenue construes the said decision as constituting a finding or a direction for issuing such notices in respect of cases such as that of the assessee s. The question whether the decision in the case of Abhisar Buildwell (P.) Ltd. (supra) constitutes a finding and/or a direction for issuance of notices u/s 148 of the Act in cases which are otherwise beyond the period as stipulated under Section 149 of the Act is no longer res integra. Plainly the controversy involved in this petition is covered by the decision of this court in ARN Infrastructures India Ltd. 2024 (9) TMI 1573 - DELHI HIGH COURT . The contention that the time period as stipulated under Section 149 of the Act is not applicable in the given facts is erroneous and thus rejected. WP allowed.

Summary

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

- Whether the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for reopening the assessment for AY 2016-17 is valid and within the limitation period prescribed under Section 149 of the Act.

- Whether the decision of the Supreme Court in Principal Commissioner of Income-tax, Central-3 v. Abhisar Buildwell (P.) Ltd. constitutes a "finding or direction" enabling the Revenue to issue reassessment notices beyond the limitation period under Section 149.

- Whether the reassessment proceedings initiated under Sections 148 and 153C of the Act are justified in the absence of incriminating material found during the search under Section 132.

- The applicability and scope of Section 150 of the Income Tax Act and CBDT Instruction No.1/2023 in extending the limitation period for issuance of reassessment notices.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Validity and Limitation of the Notice under Section 148:

The petitioner challenged the notice dated 30.08.2024 issued under Section 148 for reopening the assessment for AY 2016-17, contending that it was barred by limitation as per Section 149(1) of the Income Tax Act. The Revenue, however, relied on Section 150 of the Act and CBDT Instruction No.1/2023, asserting that the notice was valid as it was issued pursuant to a "finding or direction" contained in the Supreme Court's decision in Abhisar Buildwell.

The Court examined the statutory framework governing reassessment proceedings. Section 149(1) prescribes a three-year limitation period for issuance of notices under Section 148, subject to exceptions. Section 150, a non-obstante provision, allows issuance of notices beyond the limitation period if done "as a consequence of or to give effect to any finding or direction contained in an order passed by any authority in any proceeding under this Act by way of appeal, reference or revision or by a Court in any proceeding under any other law."

The Court analyzed the scope of Section 150 in light of the Supreme Court's ruling in Abhisar Buildwell, which held that the Revenue could exercise reassessment powers under Sections 147/148 even in cases related to searches under Section 132 or requisitions under Section 132A, subject to fulfillment of the conditions in Sections 147/148. However, the Supreme Court cautioned that this power was not a carte blanche to override the limitation period prescribed in Section 149.

Relying on the Delhi High Court's earlier decision in ARN Infrastructures India Ltd., the Court emphasized that the Supreme Court's observations in Abhisar Buildwell merely preserved the Revenue's inherent power to reassess but did not constitute a "finding or direction" under Section 150 that would extend the limitation period. The Court quoted extensively from ARN Infrastructures, highlighting that the Supreme Court explicitly stated reassessment must comply with the statutory conditions, including limitation.

Therefore, the Court concluded that the impugned notice issued beyond the limitation period was not saved by Section 150 as there was no specific finding or direction from the Supreme Court mandating reopening beyond the prescribed time.

Reassessment Proceedings in Absence of Incriminating Material Found During Search:

The petitioner contended that since no incriminating material was found during the search under Section 132, the initiation of reassessment proceedings under Section 148 and subsequent proceedings under Section 153C were unjustified.

The Court noted that the search conducted on 14.10.2020 did not yield any incriminating evidence against the petitioner, who is a Hindu Undivided Family. The initial assessment declared income of Rs. 15,97,840/-, but the Assessing Officer assessed income at Rs. 1,89,75,946/- under Section 153A read with Section 143(3) after invoking Section 153C.

On appeal, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) annulled the proceedings under Section 153C and deleted the additions, relying on authoritative precedents including the Supreme Court judgment in Commissioner of Income Tax-III, Pune v. Sinhgad Technical Education Society and the Madras High Court's decision in Agni Vishnu Ventures Pvt. Ltd. These judgments establish that reassessment under Section 153C cannot be initiated without incriminating material being found during search in the premises of the searched person.

The Court observed that the annulment of reassessment proceedings under Section 153C further undermined the Revenue's claim to reopen the assessment under Section 148, especially beyond the limitation period.

Interpretation of Supreme Court's Decision in Abhisar Buildwell:

The Revenue's principal argument rested on interpreting the Supreme Court's decision in Abhisar Buildwell as a "finding or direction" under Section 150 permitting issuance of reassessment notices beyond the limitation period. The Court critically examined this contention.

Paragraphs 33, 36.4, and 39 of Abhisar Buildwell were scrutinized, where the Supreme Court acknowledged the Revenue's power to reassess in cases where searches did not reveal incriminating material, but emphasized that such power is "subject to fulfilment of the conditions mentioned in Sections 147/148." The Court underscored that the Supreme Court's observations were intended to preserve the Revenue's statutory powers and not to override limitation provisions.

Consequently, the Court held that the decision in Abhisar Buildwell does not constitute a "finding or direction" as envisaged under Section 150 of the Act to justify issuance of notices beyond the limitation period.

Application of Section 150 and CBDT Instruction No.1/2023:

The Revenue relied on Section 150 and CBDT Instruction No.1/2023 to contend that the limitation period was extended. The Court held that Section 150's non-obstante clause applies only when there is a "finding or direction" in an order passed by a competent authority or Court. Since no such finding or direction existed in the present facts, Section 150 could not be invoked to validate the impugned notice.

Further, the Court observed that CBDT Instruction No.1/2023 cannot override the statutory provisions and limitations prescribed under the Act.

Treatment of Competing Arguments:

The petitioner's argument that limitation barred the proceedings and that no incriminating material justified reassessment was accepted. The Revenue's contention that the Supreme Court's decision in Abhisar Buildwell constituted a direction under Section 150 was rejected based on authoritative precedents and statutory interpretation. The Court relied on the principle that limitation provisions are mandatory and cannot be circumvented by administrative instructions or broad judicial observations.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

"The observations of the Supreme Court in Abhisar Buildwell were thus intended to merely convey that the annulment of the search assessments would not deprive or denude the Revenue of its power to reassess and which independently existed. However, the Supreme Court being mindful of the statutory prescriptions, which otherwise imbue the commencement of reassessment, qualified that observation by providing that such an action would have to be in accordance with law. This note of caution appears at more than one place in that judgment and is apparent from the Supreme Court observing that the power to reassess would be subject to the fulfilment of the conditions mentioned in Sections 147 and 148 of the Act."

"The observations of the Supreme Court cannot possibly be read or construed as a carte blanche enabling the respondents to overcome and override the restrictions that otherwise appear in Section 149 of the Act."

"The contention that the time period as stipulated under Section 149 of the Act is not applicable, in the given facts, is erroneous and thus rejected."

The Court conclusively held that the impugned notice issued beyond the limitation period under Section 149 was invalid and set aside the notice under Section 148. The principles established confirm that reassessment notices must comply strictly with limitation periods unless there is a clear, specific finding or direction by a competent authority or Court under Section 150, which was absent in this case.