2025 (4) TMI 942 - HC - Income Tax

Validity of proceedings u/s 154 as barred by limitation - proceedings issued after a lapse of four months from the date on which the reassessment order was passed along with the notice of demand - HELD THAT - Any amendment to Form ITNS-150 would clearly fall within the scope of an amendment as contemplated under Section 154 (1)(a) of the Act. Thus in terms of sub-section (7) of Section 154 of the Act no amendment of such an order can be made after expiry of four years from the date of the said order. The record also does not support the contention that the impugned order has not been passed under Section 154 of the Act. This is so because the impugned order was passed pursuant to a show cause notice issued in respect of proceedings under Section 154 of the Act and the impugned order expressly indicates that it has been passed under Section 154 of the Act read with Section 143 (3) /147 of the Act. We are also not persuaded to accept that the figure of interest under Section 234A of the Act which is sought to be corrected was a clerical error. As noted above the reassessment order dated 11.12.2018 expressly stated that the interest under Section 234A 234B 234C and 234D if any has been charged . AO had signed the assessment order. Thus confirming that the interest chargeable under any of the aforesaid Sections had been charged. The Form ITNS-150 was also signed by the AO and the same indicated that the interest amounting Rs. 6, 92, 90, 301/- was determined as payable u/s 234B of the Act; an amount of Rs. 5, 682/- was determined as payable under Section 234C of the Act; and the interest under Section 234A of the Act was determined as 0 . It follows that the AO was of the view that no interest under Section 234A of the Act was chargeable. This is not a case where the AO had directed the levy of interest under Section 234A of the Act and by an inadvertent error the same was not mentioned in the computation of tax payable (in Form ITNS-150). The assessment order itself clearly specified that the interest if any had been charged. It must follow that the AO was aware of the interest that was determined as payable in the income tax computation form (Form ITNS-150). It is also material to note that the Assessee disputes that any interest under Section 234A of the Act is payable. It is the Assessee s contention that the return filed pursuant to the notice under Section 148 of the Act was a mere reiteration of return that was originally filed. Therefore it could not be faulted for the delay in filing its return of income. It is not necessary to examine the merits of the said contention in this proceeding however it is clear that the issue involved is a contentious one and the Assessee s claim in this regard cannot be considered as unsubstantial which merits no consideration. It is clear that the impugned order and the impugned demand notice had been issued beyond the prescribed period and are thus set aside. WP allowed.

Summary

The core legal questions considered in this judgment are:

1. Whether the rectification order passed under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) and the consequent demand notice under Section 156 were valid, particularly with regard to the limitation period prescribed under Section 154(7) of the Act.

2. Whether the amendment sought by the Assessing Officer (AO) to include interest under Section 234A of the Act for delayed filing of return was a permissible rectification of a "mistake apparent from the record" within the meaning of Section 154.

3. Whether the computation of tax demand in Form ITNS-150 constitutes part of the assessment order under Section 143(3) of the Act and thus, whether it can be amended under Section 154 after the prescribed limitation period.

4. The applicability of the limitation period for rectification proceedings and whether the AO's reliance on inherent powers or analogy to correction of a decree or judgment could circumvent the statutory limitation.

5. The nature of the interest under Section 234A and whether the AO's omission to charge it initially was a clerical or apparent error warranting rectification.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis

1. Validity of the Rectification Order and Demand Notice under Section 154 and Section 156 of the Act

Legal Framework and Precedents: Section 154(1) empowers the income tax authority to amend any order passed under the Act to rectify any mistake apparent from the record. Sub-section (7) of Section 154 imposes a four-year limitation period for making such amendments from the end of the financial year in which the original order was passed. Section 156 mandates issuance of a demand notice when an amendment increases the liability of the assessee.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The AO issued the show cause notice and rectification order on 12.12.2024 and 26.12.2024 respectively, seeking to amend the reassessment order dated 11.12.2018 by including interest under Section 234A for four months. The Court found that the show cause notice and order were issued beyond the four-year limitation prescribed under Section 154(7), rendering them barred by limitation. The Court rejected the Revenue's contention that the amendment was a ministerial correction that could be made at any stage.

Application of Law to Facts: Since the reassessment order was passed on 11.12.2018, the four-year period expired on 31.03.2023 (end of financial year 2018-19 plus four years). The show cause notice and rectification order were issued after this period, thus violating the statutory limitation.

Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Revenue argued that the amendment was to Form ITNS-150, a ministerial document, and not the assessment order itself, so the limitation did not apply. The Court rejected this, holding that Form ITNS-150 is an integral part of the assessment order under Section 143(3), as confirmed by Supreme Court precedent.

Conclusion: The rectification order and demand notice were barred by limitation and therefore unsustainable.

2. Nature of Form ITNS-150 and Its Amendability under Section 154

Legal Framework and Precedents: The Supreme Court in Kalyankumar Ray v. Commissioner of Income Tax held that Form ITNS-150, which records the computation of tax payable, is an order in writing determining the sum payable within the meaning of Section 143(3). Any amendment to this form falls within the scope of Section 154(1)(a).

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court relied on this authoritative pronouncement to hold that the computation form is part of the assessment order and cannot be treated as a mere ministerial or clerical document. Consequently, any amendment to it must comply with the limitation period under Section 154(7).

Application of Law to Facts: The AO sought to amend the interest figure in Form ITNS-150 to include interest under Section 234A. Since the original order and computation were signed and issued on 11.12.2018, the limitation period applied to any amendment of this form.

Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Revenue's argument that the computation form is akin to a decree or judgment, which can be corrected at any time, was rejected as inapposite to the statutory scheme of the Income Tax Act.

Conclusion: Form ITNS-150 is part of the assessment order and subject to the limitation period for rectification under Section 154.

3. Whether the Interest under Section 234A was a Clerical or Apparent Error

Legal Framework: Section 234A imposes interest for delay in filing return of income. The AO must charge such interest if applicable. A rectification under Section 154 requires a "mistake apparent from the record."

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The reassessment order dated 11.12.2018 expressly stated that interest under Sections 234A, 234B, 234C, and 234D "if any, has been charged." The signed Form ITNS-150 showed zero interest under Section 234A. This indicated the AO's considered view that no interest under Section 234A was payable. The Court held that this was not a case of inadvertent omission or clerical error but a deliberate determination.

Application of Law to Facts: The AO's attempt to impose interest under Section 234A four years later was not a rectification of an apparent mistake but a substantive amendment which was time-barred.

Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Assessee contended that the return filed pursuant to the Section 148 notice was a reiteration of the original return and thus no delay in filing occurred. The Court did not decide the merit but noted the issue was contentious and the Assessee's claim was not frivolous.

Conclusion: The interest under Section 234A was not a clerical mistake and thus not amenable to rectification under Section 154 beyond the limitation period.

4. Limitation and Inherent Powers Argument

Legal Framework: Section 154(7) prescribes a four-year limitation period for rectification. The Revenue sought to rely on inherent powers under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) and Supreme Court decisions on correction of judgments and decrees to circumvent this limitation.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court rejected the Revenue's reliance on inherent powers and analogy to civil procedure, holding that the Income Tax Act contains a specific limitation regime for rectifications. The statutory limitation cannot be bypassed by invoking inherent powers applicable in civil proceedings.

Application of Law to Facts: The AO's show cause notice and rectification order expressly invoked Section 154 of the Act, and thus the limitation under Section 154(7) applied. Any attempt to treat the amendment as ministerial or inherent power exercise was unsustainable.

Conclusion: The statutory limitation under Section 154(7) is binding and cannot be circumvented by invoking inherent powers or civil law analogies.

Significant Holdings

"Form ITNS-150 is also a form for determination of tax payable and when it is signed or initialled by the I.T.O., it is certainly an order in writing by the I.T.O. determining the tax payable within the meaning of Section 143 (3)."

"Any amendment to Form ITNS-150 would clearly fall within the scope of an amendment as contemplated under Section 154 (1)(a) of the Act."

"The show cause notice dated 12.12.2024 and the impugned order are barred by limitation. Therefore, neither the notice nor the impugned order can be sustained."

"The AO was of the view that no interest under Section 234A of the Act was chargeable. This is not a case where the AO had directed the levy of interest under Section 234A of the Act and by an inadvertent error, the same was not mentioned in the computation of tax payable."

"The statutory limitation under Section 154(7) cannot be circumvented by invoking inherent powers under Section 151 of the CPC or by analogy to correction of judgments and decrees."

The Court's final determination was to set aside the rectification order and the consequent demand notice as barred by limitation and not sustainable on merits. The petition was allowed accordingly.