Reassessment notice under Sections 147, 148 quashed for invalid sanction under 151; limitation clarified under 149

HC held that the sanction and notice for reassessment u/s 147/148 were invalid due to lack of application of mind and improper approval u/s 151. The ACIT's endorsement showed inconsistent figures of alleged escaped income and failed to correlate the information received with any honest belief of income escapement, amounting to a jurisdictional error. The Court rejected the assessee's limitation challenge, holding that limitation under s.149 runs from issuance, not service, of notice. Nevertheless, HC quashed the s.148 notice dated 31.03.2018 and the related sanction order.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Application of mind by the sanctioning authority under Section 151 of the Act.
3. Correlation between the information received and the reasons recorded for reassessment.
4. Alleged breach of principles of natural justice.
5. Limitation period for issuance of notice under Section 148.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of Notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961:

The writ petition challenges the notice dated 31.03.2018 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the sanction accorded by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi-VIII. The court noted that the notice was issued on the last date of the limitation period, and the assessee argued that it was time-barred. The court found that the notice was indeed issued within the limitation period as it was dated 31.03.2018.

2. Application of Mind by the Sanctioning Authority under Section 151 of the Act:

The assessee contended that the sanctioning authority did not apply its mind and merely rubber-stamped the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer (AO). The court observed that the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax simply endorsed "approved" without providing any reasoning. The court emphasized that the satisfaction of the sanctioning authority should be discernible from the sanction order, citing the Supreme Court's judgment in *Chhugamal Rajpal vs. S.P. Chaliha*.

3. Correlation between the Information Received and the Reasons Recorded for Reassessment:

The court found that the AO made significant errors in correlating the information received from the investigation wing with the assessee's balance sheet. The AO incorrectly recorded figures related to the authorized capital, issued and subscribed paid-up capital, and share premium account. The court noted that the AO's formation of belief that the income had escaped assessment was unreasonable and irrational due to the lack of proper correlation.

4. Alleged Breach of Principles of Natural Justice:

The assessee argued that the AO relied on a statement by Mr. Pradeep Kumar Jindal without furnishing a copy of the statement to the assessee. The court noted that the revenue claimed to have provided the relied-upon documents to the assessee's authorized representative, but the proceedings sheet did not reflect this. However, the court did not base its decision on this issue as it was not pressed by the assessee during the hearing.

5. Limitation Period for Issuance of Notice under Section 148:

The court rejected the assessee's argument that the notice was time-barred, clarifying that the limitation period for issuance of notice under Section 148 commences from the date of issuance and not from the date of service. The notice was issued on 31.03.2018, within the prescribed limitation period.

Conclusion:

The court concluded that the formation of belief by the AO was unreasonable and irrational due to the lack of proper correlation between the information received and the reasons recorded. The sanctioning authority's approval was found to be mechanical and lacked proper application of mind. Consequently, the court quashed the impugned notice dated 31.03.2018 issued under Section 148 of the Act and the order granting sanction by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax. The court ordered that parties bear their own costs and consigned the case papers to record.

---