TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Reopening notice under sections 147/148A invalid for less than seven days' response; AY 2015-16 notice time-barred under section 149(1)(a)</h1> <h3>Bijendra Singh S/o Pohap Singh Versus Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur, Income Tax Officer, Ward-I, Bharatpur.</h3> HC held the reopening notice under section 147/148A invalid because the notice dated 16.03.2022 gave fewer than seven days to respond, contravening ... Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - violation of mandatory provisions of Section 148A(b) giving less than seven days to respond - HELD THAT:- Admittedly, in the present case, the notice dated 16.03.2022 was issued/posted on 17.03.2022 and the date fixed for response was 23.03.2022. Excluding two days i.e. the date of sending of the notice as well the last date indicated, even if the notice was received by the petitioner, the same falls short of seven days’ period, as envisaged by provisions of Section 148A(b) of the Act; and as such, for violation of mandatory provisions of Section 148A(b) of the Act, the notice issued to the petitioner cannot be sustained. Section 149(1)(a) of the Act pertaining to limitation - As in the present case, the amount is less than Rs. 50,00,000/- and for the Assessment Year 2015-16, the notice has been issued on 16.03.2022 i.e. beyond three years, the same is ex-facie barred by limitation and consequently is without jurisdiction. The mechanical exercise of powers by the respondents is also reflected from the fact that though the notice sent to the petitioner was returned back and received in the office on 28.03.2022, the authority without caring for the fact as to whether the notice sent to the petitioner has been served, or not, has passed the order u/s 148A(d) of the Act on 27.03.2022, which mechanical exercise of power under the Act, cannot be appreciated under any circumstance. Writ petition filed by the petitioner is allowed. 1. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED 1. Whether a notice issued under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act that affords less than seven days to the assessee to respond complies with the statutory requirement of 'not less than seven days' and is therefore valid. 2. Whether issuance of notice under Section 148/148A for the relevant Assessment Year is barred by limitation under Section 149(1)(a) when the amount allegedly escaped assessment is below Rs. 50,00,000 and more than three years have elapsed. 3. Whether passing an order under Section 148A(d) before proof of service of the Section 148A(b) notice and despite the notice being returned undelivered amounts to mechanical/invalid exercise of power. 2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1 - Validity of Section 148A(b) notice where time allowed for response is less than seven days Legal framework: Section 148A(b) requires that the assessee be served a notice to show cause within such time as may be specified in the notice being 'not less than seven days' (and not exceeding thirty days) from the date on which the notice is issued. Precedent Treatment: The requirement to exclude both terminal days when a statute mandates 'not less than' a specified number of days is followed, as explained in authoritative precedent applying Maxwell on Interpretation of Statutes: when 'not less than' so many days are to intervene, both terminal days are excluded. Interpretation and reasoning: The Court applied the canonical rule of construction that both the day of issue/send and the terminal day fixed for response must be excluded when computing a minimum statutory notice period expressed as 'not less than' a specified number of days. The notice in question was dated 16.03.2022 (posted 17.03.2022) with response fixed on 23.03.2022. Excluding the day of dispatch/posting and the terminal day yields fewer than seven intervening days, so the statutory minimum was not met even if the recipient had received the notice. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - the mandatory nature of the 'not less than seven days' requirement and the necessity to exclude both terminal days for computation. Obiter - none dispositive beyond applying the established rule. Conclusion: The notice under Section 148A(b) failing to afford the statutory minimum period of seven days is invalid and cannot be sustained. Issue 2 - Limitation under Section 149(1)(a) where escaped amount is below Rs. 50,00,000 Legal framework: Section 149(1)(a) bars issuance of notice under Section 148 if three years have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year; Section 149(1)(b) provides an exception extending limitation up to ten years where the escaped assessment amount is Rs. 50,00,000 or more. Precedent Treatment: The Court assessed the statutory limitation structure as a jurisdictional bar, to be applied on the material before the authority; established limitation thresholds operate as conditions precedent to jurisdiction to issue a notice. Interpretation and reasoning: The accounts placed on record by the petitioner (bank statement for the relevant period) show aggregate cash deposits totalling Rs. 42,15,000 - below the Rs. 50,00,000 threshold for the extended ten-year exception. The notice itself alternately refers to Rs. 42,15,000 and Rs. 41,65,000 without further substantiation. The notice was issued on 16.03.2022 for AY 2015-16, i.e. after expiry of three years; therefore, absent credible material showing escaped income = Rs. 50,00,000, the three-year bar in Section 149(1)(a) operates to render the notice ex facie time-barred and without jurisdiction. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - where the material before the authority establishes an escaped assessment amount below Rs. 50,00,000 and the notice is issued beyond three years, the notice is barred by Section 149(1)(a) and is thus without jurisdiction. Obiter - the court's observation that mere assertions by the Department that further material may exist cannot substitute for jurisdictional compliance on the face of the record. Conclusion: The notice and consequent proceedings are barred by limitation under Section 149(1)(a) because the alleged escaped amount is under Rs. 50,00,000 and the notice was issued after the three-year period. Issue 3 - Validity of Section 148A(d) order when the Section 148A(b) notice was not served and was returned undelivered Legal framework: Section 148A(b) mandates issuance and service of a notice to show cause; an order under Section 148A(d) evaluating the response (or lack thereof) presupposes that the assessee was given the statutory opportunity to be heard within the minimum period. Precedent Treatment: Administrative action premised on procedural requirements must be preceded by compliance with those requirements; a decision rendered without ensuring service of the antecedent notice constitutes mechanical or improper exercise of power. Interpretation and reasoning: The Department's own material shows the envelope containing the Section 148A(b) notice was returned undelivered and received back on 28.03.2022, whereas the order under Section 148A(d) was passed on 27.03.2022 - i.e., prior to receipt of the returned notice and with no evidence of actual service. The authority therefore proceeded to pass the order without having afforded the assessee the statutory opportunity to respond. Such chronological and factual circumstances demonstrate a mechanical exercise of powers inconsistent with the statutory scheme. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - passing an order under Section 148A(d) without proof of service of the mandatory Section 148A(b) notice, and where the notice was returned undelivered, is a mechanical exercise of power and invalidates the subsequent proceeding. Obiter - administrative remand to cure procedural defects may be appropriate where jurisdictional limits and service can be lawfully satisfied (not applicable where limitation bars the notice, see Issue 2). Conclusion: The order passed under Section 148A(d) is invalid when made before proof of service of the Section 148A(b) notice; combined with return of the envelope as undelivered, the action was a mechanical exercise of power and cannot be sustained. Interrelationship and Final Determination Cross-reference: Issues 1-3 are interlinked - procedural noncompliance with the mandatory minimum notice period (Issue 1) and absence of service (Issue 3) independently vitiate the process; Issue 2 independently establishes a jurisdictional bar on limitation grounds. Where limitation under Section 149(1)(a) applies (Issue 2), even valid procedural cure would not confer jurisdiction. Final conclusion: The notice under Section 148A(b), the order under Section 148A(d), and the notice under Section 148 are quashed and set aside because (a) the Section 148A(b) notice failed to provide the statutory minimum period of seven days; (b) the alleged escaped amount is below Rs. 50,00,000 so that issuance beyond three years is time-barred under Section 149(1)(a); and (c) the Section 148A(d) order was mechanically passed before proof of service, with the initiating notice having been returned undelivered.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
