Reassessment notice issued beyond limitation period under section 149 declared invalid and without jurisdiction

The Madras HC allowed a writ petition challenging reopening of assessment beyond limitation period. The assessee's case involved reassessment initiated based on information regarding unusual gains claimed under section 10(38). The court held that section 148 notice dated 26.03.2021 for AY 2013-14 was issued beyond the prescribed limitation period under section 149(1)(a) and (b) of the IT Act. Since the four-year limitation expired on 31.03.2017 and six-year limitation on 31.03.2019, the notice issued in 2021 was without jurisdiction, making the proceedings invalid.

---

---

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal questions considered by the Court in this matter are:

- Whether the reopening of the completed assessment for the Assessment Year 2013-2014 under Section 147/148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (IT Act) was justified and valid.

- Whether the issuance of the Notice under Section 148 on 26.03.2021 was within the prescribed limitation period under Section 149 of the IT Act as it stood prior to 01.04.2021.

- Whether the Petitioner had made full and true disclosure of material facts during the original assessment proceedings under Section 143(3) completed on 25.01.2016.

- Whether the information relied upon by the Revenue, including the alleged "reversal trading mechanism" involving share transactions in penny stocks, justified the reopening of the assessment.

- Whether the impugned proceedings were barred by limitation and hence without jurisdiction.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1: Validity of reopening the assessment under Section 147/148 of the IT Act

The legal framework governing reopening is Section 147 read with Section 148 of the IT Act. The reopening is permissible if the Assessing Officer (AO) has "reason to believe" that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. The Court referred to precedents including the Supreme Court's rulings in CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. and Phool Chand Bajrang Lal v. ITO, which clarify that mere change of opinion is not sufficient; there must be tangible material or information indicating escapement of income. Where a transaction is found to be bogus or not genuinely disclosed, reopening is justified even if the transaction was disclosed initially.

The Respondents relied on information from the Investigation Wing indicating that the Petitioner had claimed Long Term Capital Gains (LTCG) under Section 10(38) on shares of M/s. Mono Herbicides Ltd., which were illiquid and manipulated through a "reversal trading mechanism" involving entities such as Babita Naresh Jain, Rajesh Kumar Mehta, and Rita Mehta. The AO contended that the Petitioner had not disclosed the true nature of these transactions and used accommodation entries to claim bogus capital gains.

The Petitioner countered that the shares involved in the original assessment were of M/s. VMS Industries Limited and M/s. Diamant Infrastructure Limited, and that Short Term Capital Gains (STCG) were declared and assessed. The Petitioner denied involvement in transactions related to M/s. Mono Herbicides Ltd. and challenged the reopening on grounds of non-disclosure and limitation.

The Court noted that the AO's reasons for reopening were based on new information received post-assessment, including suspicious price spikes and rapid appreciation in share prices inconsistent with normal market behavior. The AO identified that the Petitioner's transactions yielded extraordinary gains within a short period, raising suspicion of manipulation and bogus claims.

The Court recognized that the reopening was predicated on information that was not available or fully known at the time of original assessment and that the AO was entitled to act upon such credible information to investigate further. The Court also noted the AO's reliance on established case law supporting reopening where full disclosure was not made or where transactions were found to be fictitious or manipulated.

Issue 2: Limitation for issuance of Notice under Section 148

Section 149 of the IT Act prescribes the limitation period for reopening assessments: four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, extendable to six years if escaped income is Rs. 1 lakh or more, and up to sixteen years for foreign assets (not applicable here).

The assessment year in question is 2013-2014, ending 31.03.2014. Thus, the four-year limitation expired on 31.03.2017 and the six-year limitation on 31.03.2019. The impugned Notice under Section 148 was issued on 26.03.2021, well beyond both limitation periods as per the law prevailing before 01.04.2021.

The Court observed that the new provisions introduced by the Finance Act, 2021, including Section 148A, came into effect only from 01.04.2021, after issuance of the impugned Notice. Therefore, the old limitation regime applied.

Since the Notice was issued beyond the six-year limitation period without any applicable exception, the Court held that the reopening was barred by limitation and hence without jurisdiction.

Issue 3: Disclosure of material facts during original assessment

The Petitioner asserted full disclosure of material facts during the original assessment, having furnished details of share transactions and declared STCG on shares of VMS Industries Limited and Diamant Infrastructure Limited. The Petitioner denied any involvement with shares of Mono Herbicides Ltd. or any reversal trading mechanism.

The Respondents contended that the Petitioner had not disclosed the true nature of transactions involving accommodation entries and reversal trading, which was only revealed during investigation and reassessment.

The Court noted that the reopening was based on information received post-assessment indicating that transactions were not genuine and involved manipulation, which was not disclosed originally. The Court acknowledged that mere disclosure of transactions is insufficient if the true nature and details are concealed or misrepresented.

Issue 4: Treatment of competing arguments and application of law to facts

The Court carefully weighed the Petitioner's argument on limitation and full disclosure against the Respondents' reliance on fresh information and investigation findings. While the Respondents justified reopening on the basis of new credible information indicating bogus transactions and manipulation, the Court emphasized that reopening must comply with statutory limitation.

Despite the validity of the reasons for reopening on merits, the Court found the procedural requirement of limitation under Section 149 to be a jurisdictional bar. The Court held that the impugned Notice issued on 26.03.2021 was beyond the permissible period and therefore invalid.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

- "When full disclosure of material facts is not made during the original assessment the Supreme Court has held ... that the Assessing Officer has power to re-open the assessment if there is tangible material to conclude, prima facie that there has been escapement of income. However, the court cautioned that the power of reassessment is not one of review and that it does not admit of formation of a second opinion."

- "Where the transaction itself on the basis of subsequent information, is found to be a bogus transaction, the mere disclosure of that transaction at the time of original assessment proceedings, cannot be said to be disclosure of the 'true' and 'full' facts in the case and the ITO would have the jurisdiction to reopen the concluded assessment in such a case."

- "The limitation for issuance of Notice under Section 148 as per Section 149 of the IT Act is to be reckoned from the end of the relevant assessment year. The impugned Notice dated 26.03.2021 issued beyond the six-year period prescribed under Section 149(1)(b) is without jurisdiction."

- "Since the Impugned Section 148 Notice was issued prior to the new regime coming into force on 01.04.2021, the earlier limitation provisions apply, and the reopening is barred by limitation."

- "The Writ Petition is allowed on the ground that the reopening of assessment was beyond the prescribed limitation period and therefore without jurisdiction."

---