TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED
1. Whether the notice issued under Section 148 (re-assessment) read with Sections 149-151 of the Income Tax Act for Assessment Year 2015-16 (dated on or after 1.4.2021) is valid in view of the Taxation and other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020 ("TOLA") and the concessions/holdings by the Supreme Court.
2. Whether, if the Section 148 notice is invalid, the consequent reassessment and addition (share premium addition of Rs. 4 crores made under Section 68) can be sustained.
3. Whether it is necessary to adjudicate the merits of the Section 68 addition once the jurisdictional validity of the reopening is determined adversely to the Revenue.
ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS
Issue 1 - Validity of Section 148 notice for AY 2015-16 issued on/after 1.4.2021 in light of TOLA and Supreme Court decisions
Legal framework: The statutory scheme governing reassessment comprises Sections 147-151 of the Income Tax Act (as amended effective 1.4.2021) and the temporally overriding relief under Section 3(1) of TOLA, which operates "notwithstanding anything contained in the specified Act" to relax time limits for specified acts/proceedings affected by COVID-19.
Precedent treatment: The Court relied on binding and directly on-point pronouncements of the Supreme Court which (a) recorded the Revenue's concession that for AY 2015-16 all notices issued on or after 1.4.2021 must be dropped because they cannot be completed within the period prescribed under TOLA; and (b) applied that concession/holding in subsequent matters to set aside reassessment notices dated on or after relevant dates. The judgment expressly cites and follows those Supreme Court decisions (including the three-judge bench decision and subsequent orders applying the concession). The precedents were followed rather than distinguished or overruled.
Interpretation and reasoning: The Court observed that TOLA's Section 3(1) applies to the Income Tax Act (a "specified Act") and, read with the new reassessment regime (Sections 149-151), results in a temporal limitation that renders notices issued on or after 1.4.2021 for AY 2015-16 invalid insofar as they cannot be completed within the extended/relaxed period prescribed by TOLA. The Revenue's own concession in the cited Supreme Court decisions-that notices issued on or after 1.4.2021 in respect of AY 2015-16 must be dropped-was treated as dispositive. Subsequent Supreme Court orders applying that concession were treated as binding precedent mandating setting aside of the notice in the present matter.
Ratio vs. Obiter: The holding that notices dated on or after 1.4.2021 for AY 2015-16 are to be dropped, based on TOLA and the Revenue's concession in the cited Supreme Court decisions, is treated as ratio (binding on the Tribunal for the facts and issue before it). References to policy, legislative intent, or broader commentary in the precedents are obiter to the extent they do not bear directly on the time-bar question.
Conclusions: The Section 148 notice dated 31.07.2022 (and any notice on or after 1.4.2021 pertaining to AY 2015-16) is invalid and is set aside. The jurisdictional conditions for reopening under Sections 147-151 were not satisfied for the period envisaged by TOLA and as interpreted/applied by the Supreme Court; consequently, the reopening is bad in law.
Issue 2 - Sustainment of consequential reassessment/addition under Section 68 (share premium of Rs. 4 crores) where reopening is invalid
Legal framework: If a reassessment notice issued under Section 148 is invalid for want of compliance with statutory time/limitation rules, any consequential assessment/reassessment order passed pursuant to that notice stands on no jurisdictional foundation.
Precedent treatment: The Court applied settled law and the cited Supreme Court authorities to conclude that an assessment order founded on an invalid Section 148 notice must be quashed. The approach follows controlling precedent rather than distinguishing or overruling it.
Interpretation and reasoning: Because the Court found the Section 148 notice invalid on jurisdictional grounds (temporal bar under TOLA as applied by the Supreme Court), the consequent reassessment and the addition of Rs. 4 crores under Section 68 lack jurisdictional basis. There is no need to adjudicate the correctness of the addition on merits where the foundational notice is quashed.
Ratio vs. Obiter: The principle that an assessment order based on an invalid notice is void is ratio; any observations regarding the merits of the addition that were not reached are obiter.
Conclusions: The addition of Rs. 4 crores under Section 68 made in the reassessment is not sustainable because the reassessment itself is jurisdictionally invalid. The reassessment order is quashed.
Issue 3 - Necessity of deciding on merits of Section 68 addition after quashing the reopening
Legal framework: Courts and tribunals generally do not decide on the substantive merits of an assessment when the assessment is quashed for want of jurisdiction; adjudication on merits is unnecessary and academic.
Precedent treatment: The Tribunal followed the approach of foregoing merit adjudication where jurisdictional defect is dispositive, consistent with established practice and the cited Supreme Court rulings which resolved the proceedings on jurisdictional/time-bar grounds.
Interpretation and reasoning: Having quashed the Section 148 notice and the consequent assessment order, the Court found no jurisdictional basis to consider or sustain the addition under Section 68. Addressing the merits would be superfluous and unnecessary.
Ratio vs. Obiter: The decision not to examine the merits after quashing for jurisdictional reasons is ratio in the context of the present proceedings; any commentary on the substantive correctness of the Section 68 addition is obiter.
Conclusions: The Tribunal declined to decide the merits of the Section 68 addition after quashing the reassessment; grounds raised by the assessee in cross-objections (challenging jurisdictional validity) are allowed and the Revenue's appeal is rendered infructuous and dismissed.
Cross-references
1. Issue 1 is dispositive of Issues 2 and 3: invalidity of the Section 148 notice (Issue 1) leads directly to quashing of the reassessment and renders consideration of the Section 68 addition unnecessary (Issues 2 and 3).
2. The Tribunal's conclusions rely on and follow the Supreme Court's concession/holdings concerning TOLA's application to reassessment time limits for AY 2015-16; those precedents are treated as binding and determinative for the present notice dated on or after 1.4.2021.
TaxTMI 
