9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2025 (4) TMI 865 - HC - Income TaxReopening of assessment u/s 147 - limitation prescribed under amended Section 149 - HELD THAT - First proviso to Section 149 prohibits issuance of a reassessment notice under the new regime if such notices have become timebarred under the old regime. Therefore the last date for issuance of Notice under Section 148 of the Act would have expired on 30.06.2021 as per the third Proviso 149(1)(b) of the Act as in force with effect from 01.04.2021. The time during which stay was in operation or the time during which the assessee took time to file the reply the Notice issued u/s 148 (A)(b) of the Act stands expelled. In this case the reply itself was filed by the petitioner only on 31.05.2022 pursuant to which the Impugned Order was passed on 30.06.2022 u/s 148(A)(d) of the Act and Notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued. Though the limitation for issuance of a Notice u/s 148 of the Act under the old regime would have expired on 31.03.2024 a reading of conclusion in decision in Union of India Vs. Rajeev Bansal 2024 (10) TMI 264 - SUPREME COURT (LB) however indicates that the Impugned Notice dated 30.06.2022 has to be treated as having been issued beyond the limitation period. WP deserved.
ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED
The primary legal issue considered by the Court was whether the Notice dated 30.06.2022 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as amended and in force from 01.04.2021, was issued within the prescribed limitation period under the amended Section 149 of the Act. This involved examining the implications of the amendments introduced by the Finance Act, 2021, and the provisions of the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020 (TOLA), as well as relevant Supreme Court decisions. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents The legal framework involved the interpretation of Sections 148 and 149 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as amended by the Finance Act, 2021. The amendments reduced the time limit for issuing a notice to reopen assessments to three years, with an extension up to ten years if the escaped income exceeded Rs. 50 lakhs. The case also considered the implications of TOLA, which provided for extensions of various time limits due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The Court relied on the Supreme Court's decisions in Union of India & Ors Vs. Ashish Agarwal and Union of India Vs. Rajeev Bansal, which clarified the application of these amendments and extensions. Court's Interpretation and Reasoning The Court interpreted that the amendments to Section 149 introduced a new regime with a three-year limitation period for reopening assessments, extendable to ten years for larger sums. The Court noted that the amendments were meant to streamline and modernize the reassessment process, raising the monetary threshold for reopening cases. The Court also acknowledged that TOLA provided temporary relief by extending deadlines due to the pandemic, but it did not extend the applicability of the old regime. Key Evidence and Findings The Court examined the timeline of events, including the issuance of the initial notice under Section 148 on 21.06.2021 and the subsequent notice on 18.05.2022. The petitioner argued that the notice was issued without jurisdiction, as the escaped income did not exceed Rs. 50 lakhs, and thus did not meet the threshold under the new regime. The respondent contended that the notice was valid as it was protected by TOLA. Application of Law to Facts The Court applied the legal framework to the facts, determining that the notice issued on 30.06.2022 was beyond the limitation period prescribed by the amended Section 149. The Court noted that the notice was issued after the expiration of the period allowed under TOLA and the new regime, and thus was time-barred. Treatment of Competing Arguments The Court considered the respondent's argument that TOLA extended the limitation period due to the pandemic. However, it found that the Supreme Court's interpretation in Union of India Vs. Rajeev Bansal clarified that TOLA did not extend the old regime's applicability but provided temporary relief for completing actions under the new regime. The Court found that the notice was issued beyond the surviving period as clarified by the Supreme Court. Conclusions The Court concluded that the notice dated 30.06.2022 was issued beyond the limitation period as prescribed by the amended Section 149 and was therefore invalid. The Court held that the proceedings initiated under this notice were without jurisdiction. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS The Court emphasized the binding nature of the Supreme Court's decisions, particularly in Union of India Vs. Rajeev Bansal, which clarified the application of the new regime and TOLA. The Court reiterated that notices issued beyond the surviving period under the new regime are time-barred and must be set aside. Core Principles Established The judgment reinforced the principle that legislative amendments, such as those introduced by the Finance Act, 2021, must be applied as intended, with due consideration to any temporary relief measures like TOLA. It underscored the importance of adhering to statutory time limits for reopening assessments and the binding nature of Supreme Court interpretations on lower courts. Final Determinations on Each Issue The Court determined that the notice dated 30.06.2022 was issued beyond the permissible period and was thus invalid. Consequently, the writ petition was allowed, and the related proceedings were quashed. The Court's decision highlighted the need for compliance with statutory provisions and the implications of judicial precedents in tax reassessment cases.
|
