2025 (6) TMI 654 - AT - Income Tax

ITAT deletes addition made in reopening assessment beyond limitation period following Supreme Court precedent in UOI v. Rajeev Bansal case

ITAT Mumbai-AT set aside appellate order and deleted addition made by AO in reopening assessment beyond limitation period case. Tribunal found assessee's ... Reopening of assessment beyond period of limitation - HELD THAT:- We find that the facts of the assessee’s case are identical to those in the judgment of UOI v. Rajeev Bansal [2024 (10) TMI 264 - SUPREME COURT (LB)] The Co-ordinate Bench of the ITAT, Mumbai, in the case of Manish Financial [2024 (12) TMI 1539 - ITAT MUMBAI] has also followed the said judgment. Although the Ld. DR has relied upon judgment in Rajeev Bansal (supra), we find that the said observation is not applicable to A.Y. 2015–16. Accordingly, the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court is applicable to the present case. In view of the above, the appellate order is hereby set aside, and the addition made by the Ld. AO is deleted. The primary legal issues considered in this appeal revolve around the validity and limitation of the notice issued under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') for reopening the assessment for the assessment year (AY) 2015-16. Specifically, the Tribunal examined:Whether the notice issued under section 148 for AY 2015-16 was valid and within the prescribed limitation period under the amended provisions of the Act, particularly in light of the transition from the old to the new regime of reassessment provisions.The applicability and interpretation of the proviso to section 149(1) of the Act, concerning the time limits for issuance of notices under section 148 for AYs prior to 1 April 2021.The impact of the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal and related precedents on the validity of the reassessment notice and consequential assessment order.Whether the addition made by the Assessing Officer (AO) under section 147, based on the cash deposit unexplained by the assessee, was sustainable.Ancillary issues such as the non-issuance of a Document Identification Number (DIN) during the reassessment process, though this was not pressed before the Tribunal.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Validity and Limitation of Notice under Section 148 for AY 2015-16Legal Framework and Precedents: The reassessment provisions under the Income Tax Act underwent significant amendment, introducing a new regime with extended limitation periods under section 149(1). The amended section 149(1)(b) permits reopening assessments up to ten years if the escaped income exceeds fifty lakh rupees. However, the first proviso to section 149(1) restricts the retrospective application of this extended limitation period for AYs beginning on or before 1 April 2021, maintaining the six-year limitation under the old regime for such years.The Supreme Court's ruling in Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal clarified that notices issued under the new regime for AYs prior to 1 April 2021 must comply with the limitation period under the old regime. Notices issued beyond six years from the end of the relevant AY would be invalid. The Court emphasized that the extended ten-year limitation applies prospectively only.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal relied heavily on the Supreme Court's decision and the coordinate bench ruling in ACIT v. Manish Financial, which applied the Rajeev Bansal principles. The Tribunal analyzed the timeline of notices issued to the assessee:Original notice under section 148 issued on 28/04/2021 (old provisions).Subsequent show cause and order under section 148A(d) in 2022, followed by a fresh notice under section 148 on 22/07/2022 (new provisions).The Tribunal observed that the six-year limitation period for AY 2015-16 expired on 31/03/2022. Therefore, the notice issued on 22/07/2022 under the new regime was beyond the permissible period and hence invalid.Application of Law to Facts: Since the notice under section 148 dated 22/07/2022 was barred by limitation as per the proviso to section 149(1), the reassessment order passed under section 147 based on this notice was liable to be quashed. The Tribunal noted that the Revenue itself conceded before the Supreme Court that notices issued on or after 1 April 2021 for AY 2015-16 would have to be dropped.Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Department's reliance on paragraph 112 of the Rajeev Bansal judgment was found inapplicable to AY 2015-16. The Tribunal distinguished this and held that the limitation bar was conclusive. The Tribunal declined to delve into other merits of the case, as the primary legal infirmity of limitation rendered further adjudication academic.Conclusion: The notice under section 148 issued on 22/07/2022 for AY 2015-16 was invalid and barred by limitation. Consequently, the reassessment order under section 147 was quashed.2. Addition of Rs. 2,02,90,700/- on Account of Unexplained Cash DepositLegal Framework and Precedents: Under section 147, if income has escaped assessment, the AO may reassess income. Section 144 allows the AO to complete assessment based on available materials if the assessee fails to produce evidence. The addition of unexplained cash deposits is a recognized ground for reassessment.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The AO found that the assessee deposited Rs. 2,05,19,450/- in a cooperative credit society but failed to explain the source with documentary evidence. The AO added the unexplained amount (after deducting declared income) to total income. The CIT(A) upheld this addition.Application of Law to Facts: Due to the invalidity of the reassessment notice, the Tribunal did not examine the merits of the addition. The addition was deleted as the reassessment itself was quashed.Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Tribunal noted that since the reassessment order was quashed on limitation grounds, the Revenue's appeal on merits became infructuous and was dismissed.Conclusion: The addition of Rs. 2,02,90,700/- was deleted following the quashing of the reassessment order.3. Ancillary Ground Regarding Non-Issuance of Document Identification Number (DIN)The assessee raised a ground concerning the absence of DIN on the reassessment order, which is a procedural requirement under the faceless assessment scheme. However, this ground was not pressed during the hearing. The Tribunal kept this ground open for academic purposes and did not adjudicate on it.Significant Holdings:'A notice under Section 148 of the new regime cannot be issued at any time for an assessment year beginning on or before 1 April 2021 if the period of six years from the end of the relevant assessment year has expired at the time of issuance of the notice.''The time limit of ten years as per the amended provisions of section 149(1)(b) can be applied only prospectively.''The notice dated 29.07.2022 under section 148 of the Act for AY 2015-16 is invalid since it is barred by limitation.''The reassessment completed under section 147 of the Act based on such invalid notice is liable to be quashed.''Since the reassessment order is quashed on the legal ground of limitation, other legal contentions raised by the assessee become academic and do not warrant adjudication.'The Tribunal's final determination was to allow the assessee's appeal by setting aside the impugned orders of the AO and CIT(A), deleting the addition of Rs. 2,02,90,700/-, and dismissing the Revenue's appeals as infructuous. The procedural ground regarding DIN was left open without decision.