Improperly Issued Notice Beyond Limit Quashed for Lack of Jurisdiction

The court held that the notice to reopen assessment beyond the 4-year limit lacked proper sanction under section 151 of the Income Tax Act as it was issued by the Joint Commissioner instead of the specified higher authorities. The court emphasized that the provisions of the Relaxation Act did not modify the statutory requirements for reopening assessments. Consequently, the court quashed the notice for lacking jurisdiction and ordered its setting aside, along with the objection and assessment orders.

---

---

Issues:
1. Proper sanction under section 151 of the Income Tax Act for issuing a notice to reopen assessment beyond 4 years.
2. Interpretation of the provisions of the Taxation and other laws, Relaxation of Certain Provisions Act, 2020 in relation to the timeline for issuing notices for reopening assessments.
3. Jurisdictional validity of the notice issued by the Joint Commissioner instead of the required authorities under section 151(1) of the Act.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner challenged a notice seeking to reopen the assessment for the year 2015-16, issued beyond the 4-year period. The petitioner contended that the notice lacked proper sanction under section 151 of the Income Tax Act, as it was issued by the Joint Commissioner instead of the authorities specified in section 151(1). The petitioner relied on a previous court decision supporting their objection.

2. The Revenue argued that the notice was issued based on the impression that the reopening fell within the 4-year period due to the provisions of the Relaxation Act, extending the limitation period. However, the court noted that the Relaxation Act did not amend sections 149 and 151 of the Act, which specify the time limits and sanction requirements for reopening assessments. The court emphasized that the statutory provisions remained unchanged despite the Relaxation Act.

3. The court found that the notice issued on 26th March, 2021, for the assessment year 2015-16, was beyond the 4-year limit. The satisfaction under section 151 was issued by the Joint Commissioner, whereas section 151(1) required the satisfaction of specified higher authorities. As a result, the court held that the notice lacked jurisdiction and ordered its quashing. The court allowed the petition and issued a writ to set aside the notice, objection order, and assessment order.

In conclusion, the court found the notice for reopening the assessment beyond 4 years to be invalid due to the lack of proper sanction under section 151 of the Income Tax Act. The court clarified that the Relaxation Act did not alter the statutory provisions governing the time limits and sanction requirements for reopening assessments. The decision emphasized the importance of adhering to the prescribed procedures and authorities when issuing such notices to maintain jurisdictional validity.

---