2025 (1) TMI 176 - AT - Income Tax

Section 148 notice issued after six-year limitation period expired renders assessment proceedings invalid and quashed

ACIT 19 (1), Mumbai Versus M/s. Orbit Financial Capital 7 Mehta Mahal And (Vice-Versa)

ITAT Mumbai held that notice under section 148 issued on 27/07/2022 was barred by limitation as the six-year period had expired on 31/03/2022. The ... Validity of reopening of assessment as barred by limitation - period of six years expired - HELD THAT:- The notice u/s.148 issued on 27/07/2022 is clearly barred by limitation. The reason being the test for checking the time limit and the validity of notices issued u/s.148 under new regime applicable from A.Y. 2021-22 and prior regime is, whether period of six years had expired at the time of issue of such notice or not. In the case of assessee, the period of six years had expired on 31/03/2022 and consequently, the notice dated 27/07/2022 is clearly barred by limitation and on this ground, the assessment proceedings u/s.147 is hereby quashed. 1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe legal judgment presents several core issues for consideration:Whether the CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance of fictitious losses claimed by the assessee through trading in equity derivatives.Whether the CIT(A) was correct in holding that there was a change of opinion, invalidating the reassessment proceedings.The legality and validity of the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, considering the time limits and procedural requirements.Whether the right to cross-examination was improperly denied, affecting the reassessment proceedings.2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSISIssue 1: Deletion of Disallowance of Fictitious LossesRelevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The case involves the interpretation of Section 147 read with Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, concerning reassessment based on alleged fictitious transactions.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal analyzed whether the CIT(A) properly evaluated the evidence and reasoning behind the disallowance of the alleged fictitious losses.Key Evidence and Findings: The Revenue's case was based on information from the Investigation Wing, which alleged that the assessee engaged in transactions to create artificial losses.Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal considered whether the CIT(A) correctly applied the law in assessing the validity of the transactions and the evidence provided.Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Tribunal evaluated arguments from both the Revenue and the assessee, focusing on the credibility of the evidence and the procedural correctness of the reassessment.Conclusions: The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the disallowance, finding that the reassessment was not justified based on the evidence presented.Issue 2: Change of Opinion and Reassessment ValidityRelevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The issue revolves around the interpretation of 'change of opinion' in the context of reassessment under Section 147.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal considered whether the reassessment was based on a mere change of opinion or on new material evidence.Key Evidence and Findings: The Tribunal examined the basis for the reassessment notice and whether it was supported by new evidence or merely a reevaluation of existing information.Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal applied legal principles to determine if the reassessment was valid under the law.Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Tribunal weighed the arguments regarding the validity of the reassessment notice and the applicability of precedents.Conclusions: The Tribunal concluded that the reassessment was invalid due to a change of opinion, lacking new material evidence.Issue 3: Legality of Notice under Section 148Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The issue concerns the procedural validity of the notice issued under Section 148, including compliance with time limits and statutory requirements.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal assessed whether the notice was issued within the permissible time frame and met all legal requirements.Key Evidence and Findings: The Tribunal reviewed the timeline of events and the procedural steps taken by the Revenue in issuing the notice.Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal applied statutory provisions and judicial precedents to evaluate the validity of the notice.Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Tribunal considered the arguments regarding the timing and procedural correctness of the notice issuance.Conclusions: The Tribunal found that the notice was barred by limitation and thus invalid.Issue 4: Right to Cross-ExaminationRelevant Legal Framework and Precedents: This issue involves the right to cross-examination in the context of reassessment proceedings.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal evaluated whether the denial of cross-examination affected the validity of the reassessment.Key Evidence and Findings: The Tribunal considered the procedural fairness and the impact of not allowing cross-examination.Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal applied legal principles to determine if the denial of cross-examination was justified.Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Tribunal assessed the arguments regarding the necessity and impact of cross-examination on the proceedings.Conclusions: The Tribunal concluded that the lack of cross-examination did not invalidate the reassessment, but the reassessment was already invalid on other grounds.3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGSPreserve Verbatim Quotes of Crucial Legal Reasoning: 'The notice u/s.148 issued on 27/07/2022 is clearly barred by limitation.'Core Principles Established: The Tribunal emphasized the importance of adhering to statutory time limits and the requirement for new material evidence to justify reassessment.Final Determinations on Each Issue: The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal as infructuous and allowed the assessee's cross-objection, quashing the reassessment proceedings.