Reassessment notice under Section 148 quashed as time-barred, limitation calculated from AY 2025-26 end

The Delhi HC set aside a reassessment notice under Section 148 as barred by limitation. The court held that for Section 153C proceedings, the relevant date for limitation is when the assessing officer decides to initiate reassessment, not when satisfaction is recorded. The block of ten assessment years must be calculated from the end of AY 2025-26, being the assessment year relevant to the financial year when the Section 148 notice was issued. The decision followed earlier HC precedents and the Revenue accepted this position. The petition was allowed and the reassessment notice was quashed.

---

---

The core legal questions considered by the Court in this matter revolve around the validity and limitation of the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, seeking to reopen the assessment for the Assessment Year (AY) 2015-16. Specifically, the Court examined:

• Whether the impugned notice dated 29.08.2024 was issued beyond the prescribed period of limitation under the Income Tax Act.
• The applicability and interplay of Sections 148, 149, 153A, and 153C of the Income Tax Act, particularly in the context of searches conducted after 31.03.2021.
• The correct method for computing the limitation period for issuance of a notice under Section 148 in cases connected with search and seizure operations.
• The relevance and effect of the proviso to Section 149(1) of the Act in determining the limitation period.
• The legal significance of the date on which the Assessing Officer (AO) initiates reassessment proceedings, vis-`a-vis the date of search or date of receipt of seized documents.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Limitation for Issuance of Notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act

The petitioner challenged the impugned notice on the ground that it was issued beyond the limitation period prescribed under the Act. The relevant legal framework includes Sections 148 and 149 of the Income Tax Act, which govern the reopening of assessments and prescribe limitation periods for such actions. Section 148 allows reopening of assessments if the AO has reason to believe that income has escaped assessment, subject to limitation prescribed under Section 149.

The Court considered the proviso to Section 149(1), which requires, in cases where reassessment proceedings are initiated following a search, that the limitation period be computed having regard to Sections 153A and 153C as they stood prior to amendments introduced by the Finance Act, 2021.

In this context, the Court relied heavily on the decision in Dinesh Jindal v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, where it was held that for reassessment actions linked to searches conducted on or after 01 April 2021, the limitation must be computed by reference to the timelines existing before the Finance Act, 2021 amendments. The Court emphasized that the date of initiation of reassessment proceedings (i.e., issuance of the notice under Section 148) is the critical date for reckoning limitation, not the date of search or seizure.

Applying these principles, the Court noted that the impugned notice was issued on 29.08.2024, which falls outside the permissible limitation period computed from the date of initiation of reassessment proceedings for AY 2015-16.

2. Applicability and Interpretation of Sections 153A and 153C

Sections 153A and 153C relate to assessment proceedings consequent to search and seizure operations. Section 153A mandates assessment or reassessment of income of the searched person for six assessment years preceding the year of search. Section 153C empowers the AO to assess income of persons other than the searched person if assets or documents found during search relate to such other persons.

The Court observed that Section 153C ceased to apply to searches conducted after 31.03.2021, as per Section 153C(3). However, the proviso to Section 149(1) requires consideration of the limitation period as it existed before this sunset clause for the purpose of reopening assessments linked to searches.

Further, the Court noted there is no mandatory requirement for the AO to record satisfaction that seized assets or documents belong to a person other than the searched person before issuing notice under Section 153C. Therefore, for limitation purposes, the relevant date is when the AO decides to initiate reassessment proceedings, not the date of search or seizure.

The Court also referred to the decision in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-Central-1 v. Ojjus Medicare Pvt. Ltd. which clarifies the computation of six-year and ten-year limitation blocks under Sections 153A and 153C. The Court reiterated that the six-year block is reckoned immediately preceding the assessment year relevant to the previous year of search, and the ten-year block is reckoned from the end of the assessment year relevant to the year of search. Importantly, for non-searched persons under Section 153C, the starting point is the date of receipt of seized books of accounts by the AO, not the date of search.

3. Computation of the Ten-Year Block Period

The Court accepted the petitioner's computation of the ten-year block period starting from the end of AY 2025-26, the AY relevant to the financial year in which the impugned notice was issued. The tabular statement presented shows that AY 2015-16 falls outside this ten-year block, rendering the notice for that year barred by limitation.

This conclusion was consistent with the Court's earlier decisions and the submissions of the Revenue, who concurred with the limitation analysis.

4. Treatment of Precedents and Competing Arguments

The Court relied on authoritative precedents, including the Division Bench judgments in Dinesh Jindal, KAD Housing Private Limited v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, and Pankaj Jain v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, which uniformly held that limitation for reopening assessments linked to searches conducted post 31.03.2021 must be computed based on the date of initiation of reassessment proceedings and the timelines existing prior to the Finance Act, 2021 amendments.

The Revenue did not dispute these principles and agreed with the limitation computation, effectively conceding the bar of limitation in the present case.

5. Final Conclusion on Limitation

Applying the settled legal principles and the factual matrix, the Court concluded that the impugned notice dated 29.08.2024 was issued beyond the permissible limitation period for reopening assessment for AY 2015-16. Consequently, the notice was held to be invalid and barred by limitation.

Significant Holdings:

"The First Proviso to Section 149 (1), however, bids us to go back in a point of time, and to examine whether a reopening would sustain bearing in mind the timeframes as they stood embodied in Section 149 (1)(b) or Section 153A and 153C, as the case may be. The First Proviso essentially requires us to undertake that consideration bearing in mind the timeframes which stood specified in Sections 149, 153A and 153C as they stood prior to the commencement of Finance Act, 2021."

"An action of reassessment which comes to be initiated in relation to a search undertaken on or after 01 April 2021 would have to meet the foundational tests as specified in the First Proviso to Section 149 (1). A reassessment action would thus have to not only satisfy the time frames constructed in terms of Section 149, but in a relevant case and which is concerned with a search, also those which would be applicable by virtue of the provisions of Section 153A and 153C."

"The identification of the starting block for the purposes of computation of the six and the ten year period is governed by the First Proviso to Section 153C, which significantly shifts the reference point spoken of in Section 153A(1), while defining the point from which the period of the 'relevant assessment year' is to be calculated, to the date of receipt of the books of accounts, documents or assets seized by the jurisdictional AO of the nonsearched person."

"The block of ten assessment years is required to be reckoned from the end of AY 2025-26 being the assessment year relevant to the financial year in which the impugned notice under Section 148 was issued."

The Court's final determination was that the impugned notice issued for reopening the assessment for AY 2015-16 was barred by limitation and therefore set aside. The petition was allowed accordingly.

---